• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding metals, finance, politics, government and many other topics"

Conservative Hispanics vs Liberal White people

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land
if citizens werer restricted to voting for a government which abided by the bill of rights, it wouldn't really matter who had the vote.
I thought you were against restriction? Now you wanna restrict who people vote for? I think that people should have the Right to vote for anyone they wnt as their government representative. From local dog catcher all the way up to POTUS.

The problem is our corrupt government.
How do you think it got that way? By people voting for other people who sought/seek to circumvent the limitations imposed upon them by our Founding Documents and expand gov power.

Had everyone in gov from the very beginning, had always acted within the limitations of power imposed upon them and not sought to expand those powers, we wouldn't have a tenth of the problems that we have.
...but it's simple human nature to not want limitations on our own actions, and that extends to peoples workplaces and government jobs. It's the same reason why we end up with things like speed limits and stop signs.



As far as the whole immigration thing goes, what do you guys who want open borders think will happen if we were to announce to the World, "come one come all. We'll take anyone and give a path to citizenship for all."
....because that is exactly what you are saying we should do.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
I thought you were against restriction? Now you wanna restrict who people vote for? I think that people should have the Right to vote for anyone they wnt as their government representative. From local dog catcher all the way up to POTUS.
Perhaps I should have worded my statement more carefully. The government should be restricted to abiding by the bill of rights. Therefore people could vote for whoever they wanted, but when elected those people would not be permitted to steal, lie or murder - since whichever government they voted for would be so restricted.

And I'm not against all restrictions. I'm against rules which infringe basic freedoms. All people must be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness. The purpose of law is to defend that liberty and laws which do so - laws against theft, fraud and murder are necessary because thieves, con-men and murderers must be punished. But other laws - laws which seek to regulate what men may peacefully do, or where they may travel - those laws are bad laws which serve no purpose but to enrich some men at the expense of others.

I'm also specifically against government solutions (which further infringe freedom) to problems created by government in the first place since that inevitably leads to a cycle of endless infringements on liberty, each one sold as the solution to a previous infringement but instead always creating more problems than it solved. Better by far to roll back each such "solution" one at a time until they have all been eliminated. Or - put another way - faced with the choice of a government created set of problems related to welfare which could be exacerbated by immigration or a set of problems related to welfare and a further set of problems caused by goverment immigration regulation I would rather go with the one set of problems and fight the bad welfare laws than wind up with both sets of problems and two sets of laws to fight.

How do you think it got that way? By people voting for other people who sought/seek to circumvent the limitations imposed upon them by our Founding Documents and expand gov power.

Maybe - maybe not. It's not clear to me that governments do what the people who vote for them want, I don't think a majority was ever in favor of the federal reserve bank, or the income tax for example. However I don't think this really matters to my argument one way or the other.

Had everyone in gov from the very beginning, had always acted within the limitations of power imposed upon them and not sought to expand those powers, we wouldn't have a tenth of the problems that we have.

I agree.
...but it's simple human nature to not want limitations on our own actions, and that extends to peoples workplaces and government jobs. It's the same reason why we end up with things like speed limits and stop signs.
I'm not sure this is true. "Human nature" is complex, changes over time, and responds to external influences such as culture, mythology, religion and education. Not every community behaves the same way.

One thing that does appear to be true is that representative government inevitably becomes corrupt over time and I am not at all sure that our form of government is suited to preserving freedom.

As far as the whole immigration thing goes, what do you guys who want open borders think will happen if we were to announce to the World, "come one come all. We'll take anyone and give a path to citizenship for all."
....because that is exactly what you are saying we should do.
I have said nothing about citizenship - and haven't even really thought through what form our government would ideally take, or even what citizenship should entail, let alone who should hold the citizenship.

That aside, I certainly support full freedom of movement for immigrants for two reasons:

Firstly and most importantly I have no right to stop them. If I choose to tell someone that they may not travel somewhere or I will commit an act of violence against them, then I am using violence against another human being to take his rights from him. I am the criminal. If you argue that I must consider the consequences - that sometimes one must do evil to prevent a greater evil, that the end justifies the means, then I would counter that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and your feet are firmly on that road. "The end justifies the means" is a logical fallacy. Any society that accepts this idea can have no limits placed on its government for any policy - literally any policy at all - must be permitted under the right circumstances. And such a society must permit some man, or group of men, or government agency to make a decision about what measures - without limit - are justified today. That man, group, or agency has unlimited power to decide what is right and what is wrong. It may authorize any action, or punish anyone without limit. As history teaches, and Lord Acton stated so clearly "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". And so we can see that "the end justifies the means" as a way of determining the rules of a society must inevitably lead to absolute corruption (which is exactly what we see today) and thus we have reductio ad absurdum - by its own logic we see that we must outlaw such a principle because outlawing the principle leads to a better end. So if you argue that unlimited immigration will cause problems, I argue that accepting that government has the power to limit immigration leads to a far worse end.

Secondly I actually believe that unlimited immigration would solve problems rather than cause them. I think
- problems caused by our current immigration policies are considerably exaggerated, and that politicians who think to corrupt the electoral process by immigration will actually find that their policy rebounds on them
- to the extent that our policy currently does cause problems it is precisely because we do not have unlimited immigration. What we currently have is selective immigration where we exclude the most qualified and attempt to subsidize immigration of less qualified people. Simply throwing our gates open to all who wish to come would lead to a very different profile of immigrant.

However this second point is subsidiary to the first. In other words it is lucky happenstance - and I would support unlimited immigration for the first reason even if I believed that it would make our lot worse.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Eagle
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
12,733
Reaction score
29,129
Location
North Carolina
How do you propose to protect personal property if the government can’t inhibit illegal movement. Immigrants are trespassing, littering, camping out, crapping on peoples lawns in Texas.

Principles are great, but what about the consequences. Even a decade ago when I lived in Ca, a friend was rear ended by illegals. The cops know they have no license or insurance and just tell them they can go. The American gets locked up for no insurance or license.

If you have no rules at all we’ll be a third world shit hole within a few years.

 
Last edited:

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
How do you propose to protect personal property if the government can’t inhibit illegal movement. Immigrants are trespassing, littering, camping out, crapping on peoples lawns in Texas.
Damaging the property of others is a crime and it is perfectly proper to punish criminals.

Principles are great, but what about the consequences. Even a decade ago when I lived in Ca, a friend was rear ended by illegals. The cops know they have no license or insurance and just tell them they can go. The American gets locked up for no insurance or license.
Nobody should be allowed to get away with damaging another's property without consequences. Letting immigrants into this country freely will not solve other problems with our legal system which require other fixes. And no system is perfect - there will always be unfortunate events and suffering in this world. But we have no right to keep people from moving if they wish to.

Sure we might even be better off if we keep others from this continent. But Bill Gates is better off if he has an effective monopoly on vaccines, no liability and compulsory vaccination. And Rumsfeld might be better off if he fences off half of Wyoming and says it belongs to him. Humanity is not better off though. And humanity is not better off when one group of people locks others out.

If you have no rules at all we’ll be a third world shit hole within a few years.
I'm not arguing for no rules at all. I'm arguing for law which protects the rights of all humans to liberty.

I agree that no rules at all is not liberty either, but once the government starts making arbitrary rules which infringe peoples' liberty then pretty soon we have a blizzard of laws which are all selectively enforced until we might as well have no laws at all.

It is only by a rigid adherence to principle that law works to create a better, more just society. And it is when men agree to laws which favor them and inhibit the liberty of others that corruption sets in and the end of that road is what leads to a third world shithole.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Perhaps I should have worded my statement more carefully. The government should be restricted to abiding by the bill of rights.
It already is.

since whichever government they voted for would be so restricted.
Until you get enough in there who seek to lessen those restrictions.

All people must be free to pursue life, liberty and happiness.
They are. In their own nations.


Secondly I actually believe that unlimited immigration would solve problems rather than cause them.
What problems do we have that inviting 3.5 billion of the Worlds poorest people to come here, will solve? None that I can think of.


Simply throwing our gates open to all who wish to come would lead to a very different profile of immigrant.
Yea, we'd end up with 3.5 billion of the Worlds poorest people with little to no skills. Ie: most of 'em would need assistance once they got here.


I would support unlimited immigration for the first reason even if I believed that it would make our lot worse.
So you are more concerned with helping everyone else in the World, but not your fellow countrymen?


How do you propose to protect personal property if the government can’t inhibit illegal movement. Immigrants are trespassing, littering, camping out, crapping on peoples lawns in Texas.
All that has to be permitted. Haven't you read? It makes ours a better nation. Lol



If you have no rules at all we’ll be a third world shit hole within a few years.
Prolly sooner than that.
....but can't limit or restrict anyone. Lol



I'm not arguing for no rules at all.
Yes, you did. Three quotes above this one, you said you are for unlimited immigration even if it hurts our nation. If that's not arguing against all immigration rules, what is it?


I'm arguing for law which protects the rights of all humans to liberty.
We already have that. Our nations laws are already supposed to do that for us Americans. After all, that who congress writes laws for. They do not write laws that apply to all people of the World. They have no jurisdiction to do that.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
12,311
The united States of America, as it was intended, cannot survive without a moral populace that is educated. Regardless of nationality or skin color.

People are naturally corrupt.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Eagle
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
12,733
Reaction score
29,129
Location
North Carolina
Damaging the property of others is a crime and it is perfectly proper to punish criminals.


Nobody should be allowed to get away with damaging another's property without consequences. Letting immigrants into this country freely will not solve other problems with our legal system which require other fixes. And no system is perfect - there will always be unfortunate events and suffering in this world. But we have no right to keep people from moving if they wish to.

Sure we might even be better off if we keep others from this continent. But Bill Gates is better off if he has an effective monopoly on vaccines, no liability and compulsory vaccination. And Rumsfeld might be better off if he fences off half of Wyoming and says it belongs to him. Humanity is not better off though. And humanity is not better off when one group of people locks others out.


I'm not arguing for no rules at all. I'm arguing for law which protects the rights of all humans to liberty.

I agree that no rules at all is not liberty either, but once the government starts making arbitrary rules which infringe peoples' liberty then pretty soon we have a blizzard of laws which are all selectively enforced until we might as well have no laws at all.

It is only by a rigid adherence to principle that law works to create a better, more just society. And it is when men agree to laws which favor them and inhibit the liberty of others that corruption sets in and the end of that road is what leads to a third world shithole.

Wasn’t implying you were advocating for no rules at all.

And I believe you’re making an intellectually honest argument.

I’m saying even trespass alone is harm to private property. It brings diminished value, lower safety, and invades privacy.

I think we agree about private property, however without a wall or enforcement reality Trumps theory.

Regarding public property I’ll make the same argument. Taxpayers pay for the water, sewer, roads, services, etc,etc, it’s bad enough we’re carrying so much dead weight with freeloading citizens, the government has an enumerated function to prevent invasion (clause 4 section 1). In practice the smallest government is the least harmful and no government is anarchy.

The reality is the ratio of makers to takers (citation Ayn) is growing an unsustainable denominator. Who but government can stop it?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Wasn’t implying you were advocating for no rules at all.
No implying necessary. Unlimited immigration means exactly that. Ie: no rules. Anyone who wants to come in, can come in.

How else is one supposed to interpret the following?

I actually believe that unlimited immigration would solve problems rather than cause them.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
No implying necessary. Unlimited immigration means exactly that. Ie: no rules. Anyone who wants to come in, can come in.

How else is one supposed to interpret the following?

No implying necessary. Unlimited immigration means exactly that. Ie: no rules. Anyone who wants to come in, can come in.

How else is one supposed to interpret the following?
You are arguing with straw men - not me.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
Wasn’t implying you were advocating for no rules at all.

And I believe you’re making an intellectually honest argument.

I’m saying even trespass alone is harm to private property. It brings diminished value, lower safety, and invades privacy.

While I don't necessarily agree with this entirely, I think it's irrelevant to the argument. I am not in this argument disputing the right of a private citizen to limit access to land he owns. I am disputing the right of the government to dictate to the private citizen who he may or may not invite to his house or place of business.

We could have a spearate discussion about ownership of land and what rights that should entail - but I think we would be in fairly close agreement about the rights a man has to exclude people from his dwelling and its immediate environs.

I think we agree about private property, however without a wall or enforcement reality Trumps theory.
The reality is that we are in a mess. The mess has been caused by the never ending corruption inherent in a government which wields all sorts of powers it should not. And some of you wish to provide the government with even more power to (partially) fix a problem which it created.

Immigration is NOT the problem we face, and eliminating it won't make any difference to the problems we face. The problems we face all stem from a massive government which acknowledges no bounds to its power and ceaselessly infringes the liberty of every man on the planet. And some of you seem to think that it should be trusted to wield more power and infringe more liberties because that will help.

You might as well hand the ring to Sauron in the hope that he exerts more control over his orcs.

Regarding public property I’ll make the same argument. Taxpayers pay for the water, sewer, roads, services, etc,etc, it’s bad enough we’re carrying so much dead weight with freeloading citizens, the government has an enumerated function to prevent invasion (clause 4 section 1). In practice the smallest government is the least harmful and no government is anarchy.
I'm not advocating no government. I am advocating limited government. I might also advocate that the form of our government should be significantly changed - but again that is a separate argument. I am also arguing that government always wields any coercive power it is given to benefit its masters and to the detrriment of everyone else. And therefore any coercive power taken from the government - no matter what that power is - works to the benefit of the rest of us.

Look at what has happened since the government claimed the power to control immigration. Instead of actively seeking to promote the immigration of skilled people who are a good cultural fit for this nation - the people who are most likely to come here of their own accord, the government has actively worked to prevent the inmmigration of those people and instead encouraged people from radically different cultures who cannot speak our language, have no education, and are a poor fit culturally. And you think continuing to allow them to wield that power will result in anything different going forwards...?


The reality is the ratio of makers to takers (citation Ayn) is growing an unsustainable denominator. Who but government can stop it?
Government is the cause of the ratio's growth. Whether anyone can stop it is a good question. Government certainly cannot.
 

RebelYell

Name no longer reflects my changed worldview.
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
1,808
Reaction score
2,507
The united States of America, as it was intended, cannot survive without a moral populace that is educated. Regardless of nationality or skin color.
Perhaps - although I think one could reasonably distinguish between the electorate and everyone else.

I also think that a collection of states, making their own laws, in the absence of a strong federal government with the ability to impose uniform solutions on the whole country would likely tend to policies which promoted morality and education amongst their various populaces.
People are naturally corrupt.
I'm not entirely sure that this is true. Some people are clearly corrupt. More are corruptible. And the corrupt seek power. Some people do seem able to resist however, and society can (and at times - not today's times though - does) promote values which help to reinforce morality and inhibit or retard corruption amongst its citizens and even amongst its officers.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land
You are arguing with straw men - not me.
I'm just using what you posted. You said that you were in favor of unlimited immigration even if it ultimately hurts our nation.

I would support unlimited immigration for the first reason even if I believed that it would make our lot worse.

Then you say there should be rules. What rule would there be needed if we allowed unlimited immigration?

I'm not arguing for no rules at all.


What rules should there be?
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land
Perhaps - although I think one could reasonably distinguish between the electorate and everyone else.
Why would we want 100's of millions of people here who are not part of the electorate?
 

Bigfoot

Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter ++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 3, 2010
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
8,084
Why would we want 100's of millions of people here who are not part of the electorate?

For a thriving society. There are 100's of millions of native born Americans that vote terribly, but that doesn't mean they don't contribute to the society. Consider too that not everyone actually wants to live in the US. The number the Americans leaving the US, has been getting bigger year after year.

I don't think cross-pollination is a bad thing as long as individual people run it, instead of Klaus Swab and the banksters.

Also, people would come for a multitude of reasons other than to vote. For example, someone might come to work for 10 years while saving money and then return to his native country. Or, someone might want to come and work seasonally. Maybe someone would like to retire in the US, but isn't worried about becoming a voter.

Just to reinforce that point, look at the GIMers who live outside the US, or are considering moving abroad. I've never heard them worry about whether they can vote in the new country. The concern usually seems to be more about safety of their person and possessions, and cost of living.

I do support a pathway for foreigners to become citizens, but it shouldn't be rushed, and it wouldn't be for anyone. It should be for those
who pass a constitutional test and swear an oath to the Constitution. Perhaps, it should require owning x amount of property, or living in country for x amount of years. It's actually the job of Congress to set those standards, but I'm sure they've abdicated that to bureaucrats, like they have for everything else.
 
Last edited:

dacrunch

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
10,753
Reaction score
17,416
Why would we want 100's of millions of people here who are not part of the electorate?

That wouldn't last long... Many cities allow non-citizens to LEGALLY VOTE in LOCAL RACES... and MORE want to do so... Recently the cities of Winooski & (capital) Montpelier in VT, which ALMOST passed the Governor... but NOT for the RIGHT REASONS... His stance is that there should be a STATE-WIDE PROPOSAL for NON-CITIZENS to have a say in DECIDING WHAT HAPPENS IN YOUR LOCAL AREAS....
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
12,311
I do not understand the pure stupidity of allowing non-citizens to vote. Even in local elections. They have no skin in the game and would, more than likely, have allegiances elsewhere.

Whatever happened to the basic logic that ensures a future for the self-preservation of families?
 

the_shootist

Politically Gender Neutral
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,083
Reaction score
178,200
I do not understand the pure stupidity of allowing non-citizens to vote. Even in local elections. They have no skin in the game and would, more than likely, have allegiances elsewhere.

Whatever happened to the basic logic that ensures a future for the self-preservation of families?
Voting has always been a scam. Anyone who doesn't realize that by now simply hasn't been paying attention. I'll never vote again! Let the illegals vote to their heart's content.
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
10,132
Reaction score
16,446
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
I do not understand the pure stupidity of allowing non-citizens to vote. Even in local elections. They have no skin in the game and would, more than likely, have allegiances elsewhere.


That's the whole point of the game. Destroy the system with the unchecked voices of alien tax consumers.
Whatever happened to the basic logic that ensures a future for the self-preservation of families?
When the Elites went 'round the bend.

One can see this as a society matures. The society prospers, some aspects more than others. Wealthier persons emerge, and a few of them grow VERY wealthy.

They come to think of themselves as wise and deserving. They come to think of those who did less well, as less deserving. They set themselves apart from "them" and take condescending views.

Which give way, in time, to contemptuous views.

Which progress into misanthropic, hateful views. That their lives, the Elites' lives, are worth more; and in the interest of Saving! The! Planet!....SOME of "Those People" will need to....oh, not have babies? Not fast enough. DIE!

With China's eager aid. And these damn-fool "Elites" can't see how they're being used to spread a Chinese empire.
 

dacrunch

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
10,753
Reaction score
17,416
Voting has always been a scam. Anyone who doesn't realize that by now simply hasn't been paying attention. I'll never vote again! Let the illegals vote to their heart's content.

Beg to disagree - we have to RECLAIM OUR RIGHTS TO REAL - TRUE - TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS, and REAL - TRUE - CANDIDATE PROMISES THAT WILL BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
12,311
Voting has always been a scam. Anyone who doesn't realize that by now simply hasn't been paying attention. I'll never vote again! Let the illegals vote to their heart's content.

Agreed. But noncitizens do not get a say in the political process.
 

Ensoniq

Midas Member
Midas Member
Eagle
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
12,733
Reaction score
29,129
Location
North Carolina
0F11ABC4-2F79-4D99-9938-3B93CB629CA2.jpeg
 

dacrunch

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
10,753
Reaction score
17,416
De Tocqueville is FULL of relevant quotes... Brilliant guy. Especially for the times.
 

Joe King

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
13,467
Reaction score
17,630
Location
Instant Gratification Land
For a thriving society.
Turning America into a place like India is not my idea of a thriving society.
....and nothing against India, I'm moreso referring just to their extreme population density and high percentage of people living in poverty. We do not need to bring that here.

not everyone actually wants to live in the US
I realize that, but given a choice, many more will than won't.


The number the Americans leaving the US, has been getting bigger year after year.
It pales in comparison to the numbers that would come if they knew that we'd let them in. Look at illegal immigration as it is now. Get an admin in who is tough on illegal immigration and the flow slows down, but as soon as we have an admin that they even think will be easy on illegal immigration and the numbers go through the roof. We've all seen this, so why is it so difficult to figure out that if we drop all barriers to entry that numbers wouldn't go exponential?


I don't think cross-pollination is a bad thing as long as individual people run it,
The gov is already full of individuals.


I do support a pathway for foreigners to become citizens, but it shouldn't be rushed, and it wouldn't be for anyone. It should be for those
who pass a constitutional test and swear an oath to the Constitution.
We supposedly already have that.
 

the_shootist

Politically Gender Neutral
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
81,083
Reaction score
178,200
Beg to disagree - we have to RECLAIM OUR RIGHTS TO REAL - TRUE - TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS, and REAL - TRUE - CANDIDATE PROMISES THAT WILL BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.
I say "Good luck with that"! Sadly, don't have the same positive outlook you may have for recovering our destroyed system! It's been destroyed for decades, not just recently. We're just now finding out how broad based the election cheating has been for such a long long time
 

WillA2

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 16, 2019
Messages
4,608
Reaction score
12,311
I say "Good luck with that"! Sadly, don't have the same positive outlook you may have for recovering our destroyed system! It's been destroyed for decades, not just recently. We're just now finding out how broad based the election cheating has been for such a long long time

I think it goes even deeper and further back.
 

Mujahideen

Owner Operator
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Survivor
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
14,921
Reaction score
30,607
Location
OTR
I can't even tell you how absolutely moronic and bigoted your post is.

I come from a part of the country that is very diverse, I’ve known people from just about every single background since I was in elementary school. I’m probably one of the most least racist people here.

As I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to respect racists and bigots to a point because they are actually necessary for stability, no different than prison politics.

I believe that if you’re viewed as weak then you won’t be respected and will become prey to the savages. Well, who has got your back? On an instinctual level, people who look like you will protect you from people who don’t.
 

vichris

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
898
Reaction score
2,432
Location
In a van down by the Rio Grande river

Goldbrix

Mother Lode Found
Eagle
Mother Lode
Joined
Apr 4, 2010
Messages
22,536
Reaction score
36,029

vichris

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
898
Reaction score
2,432
Location
In a van down by the Rio Grande river
A very interesting article.....

 

hoarder

Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
14,436
Reaction score
19,024
Location
Montana

Attachments

  • those-who-cast-the-votes-decide-nothing-those-who-count-5462669.png
    those-who-cast-the-votes-decide-nothing-those-who-count-5462669.png
    78.7 KB · Views: 12

vichris

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
898
Reaction score
2,432
Location
In a van down by the Rio Grande river

Occidentalist

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
388
Reaction score
728
Location
Somewhere in Texas
I'm coming out of the closet. I'm an extremely conservative American of mexican/native mestizo decent. I live in and am a native New Mexican.

A little background on my GIM handle. I go by Vichris because I am the 6th (VI) person named Christopher or Cristobal in my family. We Chris's are named after another great Chris, Christopher Columbus. My own father was actually born on Columbus Day 1930.

It's nice to see that you "identify" as a conservative, but the more I read you, the more It appears you may be a right leaning Mexican Supremacist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

While immigration has been problematic over the years even fairly early during US history, I'm thinking of the Catholics (Irish, Italian), the problem with Mexico and Mexican Immigration is a far greater danger. In today's society most "whites" don't associate with their family country of origin(s), they are American, with the Mexicans this largely isn't the case. Take a ride in any area heavily populated by Mexicans in the US, you will find that you are back in the old country, filth, crime, and the native language reign supreme.

This has always been the case, Juan Seguin one of the "heroes" of the Alamo couldn't separate himself from Mexico and ultimately fled there in 1842 as many branded him a traitor.

Brainwashed "whites" and political elites are indeed facilitating the decline of the US, but you think your corrupt brethren are any better?


Although I find Mexicans to be a lot more tolerable than Blacks and Jews in general, I don't welcome their arrival to the US at all. Here are some reasons;
1) Most lean to the left politcally.
2) Crime. It increases with Mexican immigration. There is no motive for Mexico to discourage the emigration of criminals. Good riddance, they figure.
3) Tolerance for corruption. This is deeply ingrained in their culture. Rather than outrage, they envy those who get by with it.
4) Race mixing. Racial dissolution contributes to the genocide of my people.
5) Discrimination against Whites. They get positioned in government offices and show favoritism to their own people. They get all kinds of preferential treatment from the government that Whites are not eligible for.
6) As non-Whites, they are much less likely to identify with Americas Founding Fathers.

Although these complaints are mostly generalities, they are true generalities.

Yes they do contribute more than most minorities. Laborers in Mexico get paid a couple bucks a day and many come here with the character of people deprived of opportunity and are glad to work for less than Americans in the same occupations. But this doesn't last. We had a joke in Texas that the difference between a Mexican National and a Mexican American was that the former weighed 145 pounds and the latter 245. Of course most of them adjust to the easy life sooner or later. This is just human nature.

The Libertarians say they are only freeloaders when freeloading is the law, change the law and the problem is solved. Yet they encourage open borders long before the false dream of ending handouts is achieved. Their negligence of sequence is very telling.

Excellent post hoarder, Marxists also love the cheap labor influx because Marx's theory about capitalism driving down wages wasn't really working, in fact in western societies, when immigration was controlled wages climbed higher. In order to fix that "problem" mass immigration was employed in an effort to fulfill Marx's prediction.


BOOM........Damn WHITE Libs......


Reading that article, if you can call it that, is painful. When a "journalist" writes a piece that has more than 50% of the content linked from twitter it's just not worth reading IMO. I mean look at the guy, yikes.

robertjonathan-for-bpr.jpg
 

vichris

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
898
Reaction score
2,432
Location
In a van down by the Rio Grande river
It's nice to see that you "identify" as a conservative, but the more I read you, the more It appears you may be a right leaning Mexican Supremacist.

Correct me if I'm wrong.
.

Ok .... you're wrong.

I call myself an American of NEW Mexican decent. I see things from a very different perspective than most here do. I'm also a very Native American. There are many of us throughout the Southwest. A mix of hispanic and native american, Mestizo. And I'm from the oldest civilized part of the country. You'll find Santa Fe was established long before Plymouth Rock. But believe me I'm not boasting. There are plenty of things here that I hate and politics and politicians are at the top of my list. We have been inundated with white (liberal) devil's from places like Wisconsin, Ohio, NY, and the likes. They come here for two reasons, it's liberal here, and their weather sucks in WI, OH, NY, IL...etc. Of course we have some of our own home grown libs here too. To many from the local reservations are of the low IQ type that are beholden to the Democrap party.


But it's the white elites in high places, the ones with ALL of the influence, the George Stephanopoulo's, Cuomo's, Savannah Guthrie's, Anderson Cooper, The talking WHITE heads, The late night talk show hosts, Bidens, Clinton's, Pelosi's, Clooney, DeNiro, white Hollywood, I could go on and on and on. Yes there are the token blacks like Don Lemon, Juan William and Gayle King but they are miniscule as compared to the white faces who think they are our betters. These are the REAL problem people in our country

And don't think I haven't noticed the Fake Jake from State Farm and various others. How all the smart and good people in every commercial are either Amish....;>) , gay, effeminate, tranny, or just plain weird. But again this is plainly the power play from the white elitist who run the media and who have their evil fingers woven into all of this crap.
 

arminius

Argentate Bluster
Eagle
Platinum Bling
Joined
Jun 6, 2011
Messages
7,831
Reaction score
13,374
He looks like an Orc to me...

orc1.jpg
 

vichris

Silver Member
Silver Miner
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
898
Reaction score
2,432
Location
In a van down by the Rio Grande river
Now Hollywood is White, too. LOL!!


Here ya go Hoarder......Here's something we've all seen that's fairly recent from Hollywood. Watch this and get back to us on how many black or even brown faces you see here.

And believe me I'm NOT trying to defend blacks or hispanics here. Most of us are conservatives here. It's ideology here that is most important to US. Not skin color or culture. But if some here wants to focus on that than I WILL be pointing out your hipocracy.

And I maintain that it is white liberals and leftist who are the men/women behind the curtain. It is WHITE LIBERALS & LEFTIST, who are pulling all of the strings. And more and more blacks and especially hispanics are seeing exactly what these white limousine liberals are all about.

 

DodgebyDave

Metal Messiah
Midas Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
16,328
Reaction score
23,067
"Citizen" ain't got a damn thing to do with it.

"I'm an American" covers it.

If

You have the mindset to go with it.

I am an uncommon man. I chose to take my chances in life.

I require no politician or group to care for me.

I take care of my own.

The tree needs water and that by God I will do
 

Casey Jones

Train left the station...
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 4, 2020
Messages
10,132
Reaction score
16,446
Location
Down the road from the Kaczynski ranch
And I maintain that it is white liberals and leftist who are the men/women behind the curtain. It is WHITE LIBERALS & LEFTIST, who are pulling all of the strings. And more and more blacks and especially hispanics are seeing exactly what these white limousine liberals are all about.
I don't disagree; but there's subclassifications beyond what you stipulate.

We have the Forrest Gumps, or Archie Bunkers. We agree there is no real problem, beyond that they're easily deluded into voting Dumbo cRat.

Then, we have the Woketards and SJWs. Those people are not stupid - they CHOOSE to act on a fantasy as if it were fact. What they are, is out of touch with reality.

Then, we have to oligarchs. The Globalists. Closest to us, are the Warren Buffets and Billy Gateses. The BIlly Fords. Woke captains of industry or multibillionaires of money-changing...like Soros.

Some of them believe their own pap. Billy Ford comes across as a doofus - probably quite likeable; but wedded to the ideology that's your Membership Card in his social circles.

But what they have in common, is their insularity. They no longer have contact with the real world - either those trained in economics or those with mainstream morals and values. They've deluded themselves that they can survive a post-industrial economy. They are busily deluding themselves now, that MMT, Magic-Money Tree theory of money, can work...just print off moar, and give it to us or to the banks who're buying shares in our mega-monopolies.

Three different groups, with separate aims and focuses (or none, in Gump's case). But this is an unhappy confluence of interests...