conservatives v. socialists..........

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
..........simplified. :)

Say there are ten people in a "society". Conservatives would want a nearly free economic market, and the result could be the following income ratios:

1 person earns 200
2 persons earn 50
3 persons earn 30
5 persons earn 20
10 persons earn 10

With socialist policies, the result could be:

21 persons earn 9.

Everyone earns less, but ahhhhhhhh - there's no "greed". :D
 
Werbung:

Coyote

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
2,213
Location
Coyote died for your sheep
..........simplified. :)

Say there are ten people in a "society". Conservatives would want a nearly free economic market, and the result could be the following income ratios:

1 person earns 200
2 persons earn 50
3 persons earn 30
5 persons earn 20
10 persons earn 10
250 persons earn .25 but it's off the books so it doesn't show up in the stats.

With socialist policies, the result could be:

21 persons earn 9.

Everyone earns less, but ahhhhhhhh - there's no "greed". :D


I fixed it for you :)
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Didn't I say "if"?



And who is letting them flood in, so they can be hired? And, of course, later be amnestized and vote (democrat)?

Who is letting them flood in? The entire federal bureaucracy, going back at least to the Kennedy administration. The last time we actually tried to do anything about illegal immigration was during the Eisenhower administration in the '50s. Amnesty was the solution of choice during the Reagan Administration.

Libs, all of them are libs! Libs are the ones who are to blame for illegal immigration, no doubt about it.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Who is letting them flood in? The entire federal bureaucracy, going back at least to the Kennedy administration. The last time we actually tried to do anything about illegal immigration was during the Eisenhower administration in the '50s. Amnesty was the solution of choice during the Reagan Administration.

One despairs of libs ever getting anything right about history. Comparing previous illegal immigration rates to the current tsunami is patently silly, and the '86 amnesty was reluctantly agreed to by Reagan, because its lib proponents advertised it as a once and for all final amnesty. Now, here they are again, and instead of 3 million, it would be 20 million. Then more the next time and the next time ..... Of course the libs ignored enforcing the compromise that won the passage of the 1986 act - that hiring illegals was illegal.
 

Here We Go

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2008
Messages
238
Who is letting them flood in? The entire federal bureaucracy, going back at least to the Kennedy administration. The last time we actually tried to do anything about illegal immigration was during the Eisenhower administration in the '50s. Amnesty was the solution of choice during the Reagan Administration.

Libs, all of them are libs! Libs are the ones who are to blame for illegal immigration, no doubt about it.

sign-smiley-508.gif

Why don't they get enough gumption to build their own factories in Mexico? This is ridiculous. We are letting the money grubbers win. Our government is not doing anything about it so it's up to us sports fans. Don't hire 'em (mow your own yard) and report those that do. I've seen them standing on corners in Dallas in groups waiting for someone to pull over and hire them for a day. We encourage them to stay here and then cry about it. I'm not going to stereo-type all of them but some come into garage sales stealing what they can while their kids disrupt the place. Now, tell me, are they thumbing their noses at us or what? Also, it's rude for people to speak Spanish when we don't know what the heck they are saying. I must admit, it's annoying when you get your nails done too. For all I know the orientals are saying "I hate doing this person's nails" while they smile at you sweetly. :confused:
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
One despairs of libs ever getting anything right about history. Comparing previous illegal immigration rates to the current tsunami is patently silly, and the '86 amnesty was reluctantly agreed to by Reagan, because its lib proponents advertised it as a once and for all final amnesty. Now, here they are again, and instead of 3 million, it would be 20 million. Then more the next time and the next time ..... Of course the libs ignored enforcing the compromise that won the passage of the 1986 act - that hiring illegals was illegal.

Was it the "lib" Bush administration and it's "lib" rubber stamp congress that opened the flood gates from '00 to '06, then? I can remember when the libs in the Reagan administration "reluctantly" allowed the libs in Congress to pass their lib law granting amnesty to the illegals in '86, thus starting the flood that now has resulted in (how many? 12 million? 20 million? Who knows?) illegals living within our borders.

Any way you try to spin it, it isn't just the Democrats (if that's how you define "lib") that has allowed illegal immigration to continue. It's a bipartisan failure.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Was it the "lib" Bush administration and it's "lib" rubber stamp congress that opened the flood gates from '00 to '06, then? I can remember when the libs in the Reagan administration "reluctantly" allowed the libs in Congress to pass their lib law granting amnesty to the illegals in '86, thus starting the flood that now has resulted in (how many? 12 million? 20 million? Who knows?) illegals living within our borders.

You're clueless. I'll try again - listen now: Reagan agreed to a COMPROMISE in 1986 in which ONLY THOSE IN THE COUNTRY AT THAT TIME, 1986, would be allowed citizenship, and nobody afterwards. The "nobody afterwards" was to be enforced by no employing of illegal aliens. Congress thereafter completely failed to implement enabling legislation to finance the inspectors, real ID, and the computer systems and so forth that would allow the no employment provision to be enforced. Half-lib Republicans like Bush were of course involved, but the principal and necessary obstruction came from the democrats.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
You're clueless. I'll try again - listen now: Reagan agreed to a COMPROMISE in 1986 in which ONLY THOSE IN THE COUNTRY AT THAT TIME, 1986, would be allowed citizenship, and nobody afterwards. The "nobody afterwards" was to be enforced by no employing of illegal aliens. Congress thereafter completely failed to implement enabling legislation to finance the inspectors, real ID, and the computer systems and so forth that would allow the no employment provision to be enforced. Half-lib Republicans like Bush were of course involved, but the principal and necessary obstruction came from the democrats.

Even supposing that you're right about the disastrous amnesty bill signed into law by RR in '86, which released the flood gates regardless of what was supposed to happen, illegal immigration is still a bipartisan failure.

If it is all the Democrats fault, then how do you explain the fact that nothing was done about illegal immigration for the six years that Republicans controlled the Congress and White House?

I'm not going to try to argue that Democrats are ready to control the borders, you understand, but that the Republicans are no better.

You do remember the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill of '06, don't you? Let's see, McCain (R) and Kennedy (D). Neither the (D) nor the (R) can take the high ground on this issue.
 

Libsmasher

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2008
Messages
3,151
Even supposing that you're right about the disastrous amnesty bill signed into law by RR in '86, which released the flood gates regardless of what was supposed to happen, illegal immigration is still a bipartisan failure.

Reagan didn't open any flood gates - the flood gates had always been open.

If it is all the Democrats fault, then how do you explain the fact that nothing was done about illegal immigration for the six years that Republicans controlled the Congress and White House?

I'm not going to try to argue that Democrats are ready to control the borders, you understand, but that the Republicans are no better.

You do remember the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill of '06, don't you? Let's see, McCain (R) and Kennedy (D). Neither the (D) nor the (R) can take the high ground on this issue.

I let you lure me into a discussion of political parties, and now I return to my original statement, that it was libs, and RINOS occasionally acting like libs. No conservative wanted what's happened since the "once and for all" 1986 amnesty. What's happened is due to the inaction of RINOs like Bush and his father, McCain as the RINO he used to be (assuming he's really changed) and every democrat under the sun.
 

PLC1

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 20, 2007
Messages
10,605
Location
The Golden State
Reagan didn't open any flood gates - the flood gates had always been open.



I let you lure me into a discussion of political parties, and now I return to my original statement, that it was libs, and RINOS occasionally acting like libs. No conservative wanted what's happened since the "once and for all" 1986 amnesty. What's happened is due to the inaction of RINOs like Bush and his father, McCain as the RINO he used to be (assuming he's really changed) and every democrat under the sun.

To paraphrase, libs are people who don't want to do anything about illegal immigration, therefore, illegal immigration is the fault of the libs from both parties. The Republican Congress and Whitehouse of '00 to '06 was dominated by libs regardless of which party was in power. It's difficult to argue with such logic as that. How many more definitions of the term "lib" do you have?

Illegal immigration has been a problem for decades. When Reagan signed into law the illegal immigration amnesty act of '86, the trickle became a flood. The floodgates may have been open a crack before, after that, they were thrown wide open and have been that way since.

Does having signed an anmesty bill mean that Reagan was a "lib"? If he was a non lib, why didn't he veto the bill?
 
Werbung:

Andy

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2008
Messages
3,497
To paraphrase, libs are people who don't want to do anything about illegal immigration, therefore, illegal immigration is the fault of the libs from both parties. The Republican Congress and Whitehouse of '00 to '06 was dominated by libs regardless of which party was in power. It's difficult to argue with such logic as that. How many more definitions of the term "lib" do you have?

Illegal immigration has been a problem for decades. When Reagan signed into law the illegal immigration amnesty act of '86, the trickle became a flood. The floodgates may have been open a crack before, after that, they were thrown wide open and have been that way since.

Does having signed an anmesty bill mean that Reagan was a "lib"? If he was a non lib, why didn't he veto the bill?

Well one issue here is, I believe Reagan honestly thought this would fix the problem. Perhaps even most non-liberals believed that.

However, we are now in a better position to see that this act didn't fix the problem and made it horribly worse. Further, we have this little terrorism issue, which gives more credit to not giving Amnesty, and more urgency to closing the boarders.

Point being, then, at that time, it may have been a neutral issue. But now, at this time, it's clearly Liberal to try the same bad idea again thinking it will help, when clearly it didn't before. This is what Liberals do. They don't fix problems because doing so takes away their political football. If they keep trying a known failed policy, the issue will come back over and over, giving them something to kick around during elections.
 
Top