Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 258 of 262 FirstFirst ... 158208248256257258259260 ... LastLast
Results 3,856 to 3,870 of 3926
  1. #3856
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    right here
    Posts
    28,156
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    The vast majority of white people commonly referred to as 'red blooded Americans' didn't come to this country because they were poor or persecuted....their ancestors got in because they showed up at the door and asked to come in. Why should it be harder for others to do the same?

    The way some of this year's crap has transpired, there may be more 'openings' available anyway....
    there was also a time when America was giving away free land to anyone new. that's not the case anymore either. things change, rules and laws change.


    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals.
    #TrumpDerangementSyndrome


  2. #3857
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    Make Mexico our 51st state and there's a ton less border to build a wall on
    That's just what we need…a giant Puerto Rico.

  3. #3858
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,021
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    That's just what we need…a giant Puerto Rico.
    lol, I wasn't serious, of course....reality is it would add more problems than it eliminates
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  4. #3859
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    lol, I wasn't serious, of course....reality is it would add more problems than it eliminates
    Ya think???

  5. #3860
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    The vast majority of white people commonly referred to as 'red blooded Americans' didn't come to this country because they were poor or persecuted....their ancestors got in because they showed up at the door and asked to come in. Why should it be harder for others to do the same?

    The way some of this year's crap has transpired, there may be more 'openings' available anyway....
    Name the time period you are referring to. I remember you said you were an accountant. Accountants follow logic. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. The early settlers came here back when this country wasn't as developed. The 'immigrants' you are referring to created this country and established the rights. The USA today is a massive country in which the immigration laws are MUCH different than those of the past. So once again, you're an accountant. You follow logic, right? A messed up formula or way of reporting an item can lead to faulty statements, yes? So what is so difficult for you to understand here? Immigration laws are different, tax laws are different (surely you know that federal tax became a thing in 1913, right?) These federal taxes are now used to sponsor benefits for the rest of the country. Whites didn't come into this country with these SAME benefits. When these benefits are now GIVEN to everyone, you need to vet who comes in and out because you don't want a population filled with people not contributing into the system.

    Also, immigration is largely dependent on how many immigrants are already in the country. If illegal immigration increases, then legal immigration has to decrease because the country has to be able to appropriate the amount of funding needed. This is why a CENSUS is conducted every ten years.

    So I'm just curious, which part confused you? The fact that immigration laws are vastly different and that the early settlers arrived to a country that was not a superpower of the world? Or the fact that the federal income tax was not supposed to be used for funding public benefits the way it is now?

  6. #3861
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    You are not stupid either.

    Go back and re-read.

    Refugees are clearly defined as to what makes them a refugee. Just having a hard time of it (being poor and/or jobless) does not qualify as being a refugee and the US or any country is not obligated to take them in. These people just don't want to live in their native country and we, unfortunately, are the closest prosperous country.

    And, again, many are passing through Mexico (and maybe some other countries). Why don't they stay there…answer is because we are a better deal than Mexico.

    i am not heartless and feel for their situation but we can't just take everyone in. Their country has let them down, not the US. I would even be in favor of a huge enterprise zone or trade arrangement that would benefit all of the Americas (including the US) and keep these people home and let them prosper there. But where would the $$$ come from (hmmm…what is all that black stuff underground in Venezuela that those morons can't figure out what to do with.)

    The problem is that most of these countries have awful, corrupt governments that would screw up anything that was put in place. It is their governments, not ours, that needs to be overhauled. And it will never happen.And their people keep looking north to the US.
    This is what people don't understand. We as a country can't allow everyone to come in or else there would be only ten countries in the existence of the world... Every country would decline, end up being conquered or taken over, and small countries like Honduras or Guatemala would be a thing of the past. I am willing to bet 75% of the world would gladly come to America and renounce their citizenship of their respective country. So is it America's duty to take in the rest of the world? Who pays the taxes? Who makes sure that our individuals rights are being respected? Where do these people live? Are you 100% sure they aren't criminals?

    Just because you are applying for refugee status doesn't mean your case is valid. The reason why Trump is forcing people to apply for refugee status in Mexico is because Mexico is only one country of illegals trying to get in. Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia, Guatemala... all of them have to trek up to the Southern border to get here. But if they are escaping violence, then Mexico should be the first place they apply for refugee status because Mexico is a strong economy. Yes, they do have some crime in different areas but Mexico, as a whole, is not as dangerous if you stay away from the cartels. USA does allow refugee applicants from Mexico from those who are ESCAPING abuse and crime from cartel members. That is an EXCEPTION.

    Mexico's wages and economy has been growing rapidly over the years... Please don't tell me that the people escaping South and Central America have nowhere to go other than the USA. And even if that is true, that doesn't mean a country, any country for that matter, has a duty to allow them to come in.

    Now let's talk about all these countries and their corruption. So these government leaders are corrupt and complicit in socialism and sponsoring government contracts for their own personal gain, right? If that's the case, America should be allowed to invade all these countries, seize control of their territory, and fix it up, yes? Because if it's SO BAD in these countries that these people want to escape, the UN should step in and clean up the corruption or seize territory. Everyone wants a Western society but gets upset when these Western countries come in and take their ****.

  7. #3862
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,021
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    Name the time period you are referring to. I remember you said you were an accountant. Accountants follow logic. Immigration is a privilege, not a right. The early settlers came here back when this country wasn't as developed. The 'immigrants' you are referring to created this country and established the rights. The USA today is a massive country in which the immigration laws are MUCH different than those of the past. So once again, you're an accountant. You follow logic, right? A messed up formula or way of reporting an item can lead to faulty statements, yes? So what is so difficult for you to understand here? Immigration laws are different, tax laws are different (surely you know that federal tax became a thing in 1913, right?) These federal taxes are now used to sponsor benefits for the rest of the country. Whites didn't come into this country with these SAME benefits. When these benefits are now GIVEN to everyone, you need to vet who comes in and out because you don't want a population filled with people not contributing into the system.

    Also, immigration is largely dependent on how many immigrants are already in the country. If illegal immigration increases, then legal immigration has to decrease because the country has to be able to appropriate the amount of funding needed. This is why a CENSUS is conducted every ten years.

    So I'm just curious, which part confused you? The fact that immigration laws are vastly different and that the early settlers arrived to a country that was not a superpower of the world? Or the fact that the federal income tax was not supposed to be used for funding public benefits the way it is now?
    When did I say I was confused?
    I made a very general statement as a reminder that many of us have only been here a couple generations ourselves. Of course the actual laws are different.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  8. #3863
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    When did I say I was confused?
    I made a very general statement as a reminder that many of us have only been here a couple generations ourselves. Of course the actual laws are different.
    You are confused. This is what you wrote:

    "Why should it be harder for others to do the same?"

    If you knew about the changes in the immigration and federal taxation laws, you would not ask why it is more difficult. Thus, you are confused as to what has changed between the early white settlers vs immigration today.

    Thank you.

  9. #3864
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Posts
    6,876
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    This is what people don't understand. We as a country can't allow everyone to come in or else there would be only ten countries in the existence of the world... Every country would decline, end up being conquered or taken over, and small countries like Honduras or Guatemala would be a thing of the past. I am willing to bet 75% of the world would gladly come to America and renounce their citizenship of their respective country. So is it America's duty to take in the rest of the world? Who pays the taxes? Who makes sure that our individuals rights are being respected? Where do these people live? Are you 100% sure they aren't criminals?

    Just because you are applying for refugee status doesn't mean your case is valid. The reason why Trump is forcing people to apply for refugee status in Mexico is because Mexico is only one country of illegals trying to get in. Honduras, Venezuela, Colombia, Guatemala... all of them have to trek up to the Southern border to get here. But if they are escaping violence, then Mexico should be the first place they apply for refugee status because Mexico is a strong economy. Yes, they do have some crime in different areas but Mexico, as a whole, is not as dangerous if you stay away from the cartels. USA does allow refugee applicants from Mexico from those who are ESCAPING abuse and crime from cartel members. That is an EXCEPTION.

    Mexico's wages and economy has been growing rapidly over the years... Please don't tell me that the people escaping South and Central America have nowhere to go other than the USA. And even if that is true, that doesn't mean a country, any country for that matter, has a duty to allow them to come in.

    Now let's talk about all these countries and their corruption. So these government leaders are corrupt and complicit in socialism and sponsoring government contracts for their own personal gain, right? If that's the case, America should be allowed to invade all these countries, seize control of their territory, and fix it up, yes? Because if it's SO BAD in these countries that these people want to escape, the UN should step in and clean up the corruption or seize territory. Everyone wants a Western society but gets upset when these Western countries come in and take their ****.
    Who is this Ocean Spray guy???

    This sounds like something I would have written. Pretty fair grammar and usage too. It does sound like something I would have written.

    Other than the invading countries part, I concur.

    Good job.

  10. #3865
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,021
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    You are confused. This is what you wrote:

    "Why should it be harder for others to do the same?"

    If you knew about the changes in the immigration and federal taxation laws, you would not ask why it is more difficult. Thus, you are confused as to what has changed between the early white settlers vs immigration today.

    Thank you.
    dude, I already explained that I wasn't talking about a direct comparison to the Mayflower or even Little House on the Prairie. Nor was I talking about there being the exact same laws. I was speaking to someone who appeared to be talking like these people were criminals who should be rejected and dealt with accordingly and I was simply suggesting that shouldn't automatically be the case.
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  11. #3866
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    dude, I already explained that I wasn't talking about a direct comparison to the Mayflower or even Little House on the Prairie. Nor was I talking about there being the exact same laws. I was speaking to someone who appeared to be talking like these people were criminals who should be rejected and dealt with accordingly and I was simply suggesting that shouldn't automatically be the case.
    Your post did not have a quotation of another comment on it so there is no way of knowing you were directly responding to someone. Either way, what shouldn't be the case? Who is claiming that all illegals are criminals and should be rejected? Because even if someone did claim that, I don't see how it's even remotely relatable to the early settlers immigrating here and since you mentioned white, it leads me to believe you think whites were treated a lot more fairly than other immigrating races which despite being true, the name of the game back then was to COLONIZE as many countries as you could. Every race engaged in it.

  12. #3867
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,021
    follow the conversation...I didn't quote a post because I was just adding to the conversation going on at the time

    oh my, I didn't quote one here either!
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

  13. #3868
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Miami Heat
    Posts
    4,205
    Quote Originally Posted by SiteWolf View Post
    follow the conversation...I didn't quote a post because I was just adding to the conversation going on at the time

    oh my, I didn't quote one here either!
    Give me the name... who said that they are all criminals and should be denied? If you didn't quote someone and I responded to your message under your own implication that you stated was a 'general statement', why are you now upset that I am asking which post or poster you are directly responding to? Don't get emotional. It's politics. Me saying you are confused happens to me all the time... when I misread or misunderstand someone's position, I get confused. If you want to take it personal and be sensitive about it, that's on you.

  14. #3869
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    parts unknown
    Posts
    50,668

    Immigration Reform

    Quote Originally Posted by Sluggo1 View Post
    You are not stupid either.

    Go back and re-read.

    Refugees are clearly defined as to what makes them a refugee. Just having a hard time of it (being poor and/or jobless) does not qualify as being a refugee and the US or any country is not obligated to take them in. These people just don't want to live in their native country and we, unfortunately, are the closest prosperous country.

    And, again, many are passing through Mexico (and maybe some other countries). Why don't they stay there…answer is because we are a better deal than Mexico.

    i am not heartless and feel for their situation but we can't just take everyone in. Their country has let them down, not the US. I would even be in favor of a huge enterprise zone or trade arrangement that would benefit all of the Americas (including the US) and keep these people home and let them prosper there. But where would the $$$ come from (hmmm…what is all that black stuff underground in Venezuela that those morons can't figure out what to do with.)

    The problem is that most of these countries have awful, corrupt governments that would screw up anything that was put in place. It is their governments, not ours, that needs to be overhauled. And it will never happen.And their people keep looking north to the US.
    Like I said some are some aren’t. Your insistence that they are all the same doesn’t surprise me


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Last edited by ewing; 10-28-2020 at 02:36 PM.
    Rep Power: 0




    Quote Originally Posted by Raps08-09 Champ View Post
    My dick is named 'Ewing'.

  15. #3870
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    15,021
    Quote Originally Posted by OceanSpray View Post
    Give me the name... who said that they are all criminals and should be denied? If you didn't quote someone and I responded to your message under your own implication that you stated was a 'general statement', why are you now upset that I am asking which post or poster you are directly responding to? Don't get emotional. It's politics. Me saying you are confused happens to me all the time... when I misread or misunderstand someone's position, I get confused. If you want to take it personal and be sensitive about it, that's on you.
    I may have used the word criminal while posters like Special didn't, it was more their inference. But one more time, I'm not upset, sensitive, or confused about any of it. I don't profess to be knowledgeable about immigration laws, but I'm not ignorant of them either. If it appears your posts feel personal, it's because you're posting directly to me while not, apparently, reading the conversation leading up to the posts of mine you're talking directly to. That, to me, is taking things out of context, then, yes?
    gotta love 'referential' treatment

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •