OH, you couldn't be more wrong. Immigration USED to not be imperialism. Today, in 2013, immigration is the # 1 methodology of imperialism. In the old way, from the days of Vikings to, the 1930s Japanese in Asia, to Bush going into Iraq (perhaps), countries sent military troops to grab wealth and resources and bring them back to the home country. Nowadays, especially with countries relatively weak in military power (like Mexico), they send poor people. The poor people "troops" invade the country in large quantities, scoop up the countries' jobs by undercutting wages and working for companies with no national pride or dignity, and send huge amounts of money (remittances$$) back to the home country. This money (tens of Billions$$ per year), being extracted out of the US economy, and re-inserted in the economies of the imperialist countries (most Mexico currently), is far greater than the wealth that past imperialists acquired back in the military invasion days of imperialism. Banco de Mexico (Mexico's central bank) reports in recent years, that Mexico has been receiving $25 Billion/year from US remittances. $25 Billion/year!! The Vikings would be envious. Not only is the immigration imperialism the new, modern form of imperialism that has replaced military imperialism, but it is a far more successful/lucrative imperialism than the old form it replaced. It is especially important to note that remittances$$$$ are only half of the new imperialism. The other half, in the case of Mexico and the USA is welfare. It was reported that in 2009 (based on data collected in 2010), 57 percent of households headed by an immigrant (legal and illegal) with children (under 1 used at least one welfare program, compared to 39 percent for native households with children. So we have Mexico not only cashing in on their immigrant-remittance operation, but they also cash in big at being relieved of having to pay their poverty bill, while they allow US taxpayers to do that for them, via the anchor baby racket and use of false documents (which has become a new industry in itself). Imperialism. 2013 style. Welcome to reality. http://www.cis.org/immigrant-welfare-use-2011 http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...xican-invasion-united-states-1950-2012-a.html
OK, so the US is not Imperialistic, Mexico is. I get it, it is so crystal clear! And let me guess, we need to arm ourselves and beat back the brown hordes?
1. Being partially Hispanic (Central American), I resent your racist use of the term "brown hordes". Please watch your mouth, OK ? 2. I didn't say that the US was or wasn't imperialistic. I simply mentioned where the US is the victim (big time) of imperialism. If you choose to stick head in sand and go into denial, there's no law against that. 3. As far as arming ourselves, every nation must do that, and to defend against the massive amount of immigration imperialism (some of it is from mostly White nations too - ex Ireland), we must deport those here illegally, beat down politically-inspired attempts to grant amnesty, build the Mexican border double fence (mandated by law 7 years ago), abolish birthright citizenship, stamp out documentation fraud, arrest and jail illegal employers, arrest and jail illegal aliens coming across the border illegally, stop accomodating immigrants with using Spanish language, get tough with Mexico, arrest US mayors who declare their cities, sanctuary cities, and enact a mass deportation system similar to the Eisenhower 1954 Operation Wetback , in which huge numbers of illegal aliens were hunted down by immigration agents, who went house to house rounding them up and deporting them. Hundreds of thousands more fled back to Mexico on their own. So yes, we DO need to beat back the tide of illegal immigration (and stop granting visas), and this would be how to do it.
Actually, that was intended as sarcasm, poking fun at your apparent mindset towards Hispanics. You may be "partially Hispanic", my wife of over 27 years was born and raised in South America, and that our son Hispanic. And this thread is still all over the freaking board. No real purpose other then rambles about Imperialism and all sorts of other crazy beliefs. We have gone from corporate warfare to immigration, and I have yet to really see anything other then sophomoric political nonsense.
There is no "apparent mindset" except in your distorted mindset that apparently sees racism around every corner, which is an example of YOUR racism. The reason why you have "yet to really see", is because you are telling yourself that what you are told isn't true. It is true. Take off the blinders, and see the light. The stuff I've said ought to be self-explanatory to anyone the slightest bit objective. Being overly subjective appears to be the problem for you, not what anyone's saying. Like a lot of people in this forum, you see what you want to see.
Wow, and next I guess I should cast off my chains, eh? As I said, slogans do not impress me at all. And I still see nothing but a muddled mess of sophomoric political ranting.
Muddled mess? Are you kidding? My sophomoric political rantings are NOT muddled, but very organized.. they are numbered, & neatly ordered.
Well, let's just look back at one, shall we? Yes, and no. However, it was also established by the writers of the Constitution that the President can take military action, as long as he has their consent. "War" is more a definition of how much that would affect the US itself, since a "Declaration of War" involves a great many other things, and generally mobilizes the entire country to fight (as well as gives the President broad powers). As I said, sophomoric. I see nothing but a mishmash of political slogans and rants, nothing really cohesive. But maybe it makes sense to you, that is fine.
very serious.. ok.. i usually avoid battles of wits with unarmed men.. You also should know that your quote is not mine.. but don't be bothered with details.. No matter what happens, somebody will find a way to take it too seriously. ~Dave Barry
Oh yes, not yours... I just made it up out of thin air. OK, I am pretty much done here. Since you are only going to play stupid games, denying what you yourself said, there is no point continuing. As I said sophomoric.
You got me. I did not remember saying that.. i guess it was by itself out of context. I concede fault. But this was not one of my numbered, ordered sophomoric rants.. It slipped through the cracks. My apologies for casting aspersions on your quote.
The american constitution has strict limits on what the executive branch can do. This is a 'check & balance' that the founders worked for. It keeps executive power in check, & forbids them from making war at will. They have to go through the congress, which is like a jury in a due process judicial matter. Say there is a threat to the nation. The president or intelligence community brings the evidence to congress. They look at it & determine if there is a need for military response.. international justice. If the evidence is vague, or insufficient, congress should turn that request down. If they determine there is a direct threat to the nation, it is fitting for them to declare war & make appropriations. The president then commands the armed forces to eliminate the threat, as mandated by congress. This is the way of the american constitution. We the people, pay for the war, kill, & die in it. But what do we have, now? A president has become judge, jury, & executioner. They say, 'trust us, we have the inside information', then proceed to bomb or invade other sovereign nations, without a declaration of war. The executive branch has taken a role that is not granted by the constitution, & now makes war indiscriminately.. killing anyone they want. This is completely contrary to a free people, ruled by Law.. we are a republic, with clear procedures for justice. It is not up to the whim of a bureaucrat to decide who lives of dies. 1. Constitutional war in america is a matter of due process. Congress must declare it, & the executive branch carries out the order. Violations of this basic protocol strikes at the very heart of what america is about. Due process, checks & balances, & separation of duties are core american values. This is the most basic covenant of american justice. Without it, we are another state centered ruling monster, with no individual rights. 2. Killing ANYONE is a violation of their individual sovereignty, & is contrary to the concept of due process. American citizens ESPECIALLY should have the full protection of the constitution, & not have their rights waived whimsically by a bureaucrat for vague notions of 'national security'. Let charges be filed, & let the accuser face the accused. Review the evidence, & let a jury of peers decide their guilt. THAT is the heritage of justice we have arrived at, & the current violations are a step backward for mankind. 3. If core values are set aside for convenience, then there are no individual rights. America is a farce.. justice, liberty, & individual freedom are an illusion & have no meaning. There MUST be consistency in our policy. It MUST reflect the core values of america, which are due process, individual sovereignty, & the securing of basic rights. 4. If liberty, due process, & the separation of powers as outlined in the constitution are ignored, we have lost the heart & soul of america. We have become just another oppressive state, where the individual's rights mean nothing, & the rulers can whimsically give or withhold our rights. The constitutional guarantees are mere suggestions to them, & their ignoring & trampling of these basic motivational ideals are a treasonous act. They are anti american, anti human, & should be deposed swiftly & ruthlessly.
The prime example of why the Constitution means nothing. The process is easily subverted and there is almost no chance that anybody is going to EVER hold a president accountable. Have as many laws as you like, there is nothing to prevent a run-up to war like we had with Iraq.
Bush did it by the book Phoebe. Took his case to Congress and 115 democrats voted for the Iraq war. That's a far cry from the unconstitutional BS Obama is pulling on a regular basis.
Actually, you are both right, and wrong. I now direct you to Article II, Section 2, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution: Which then runs into Clause 2: Now dating all the way back to President Jefferson, it was decided that the President only needs the "advise and consent" of Congress to engage in hostilities. This is not war, only Congress can declare that. But as Commander in Chief, the President can order the US military to engage in hostile action, only needed to inform Congress first. And this dates all the way back to 1801, over 200 years ago. So what you said is irrelevant. He did do it properly, as every President who has involved US forces without a declaration of war for over 200 years. He went to Congress, and asked their permission. The House and Senate then passed seperate resolutions which both sides passed authorizing the hostilities. This was entered into law as an Act of Congress, Public Law No: 107-243. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ243/html/PLAW-107publ243.htm Try again please. The law was followed, and both houses of Congress (in fact both parties in the Senate supported this resolution). No subversion here, the facts are easy to look up.
He took his lyin' case to Congress just like Powell took his lyin' case to the UN. That ain't constitutional.
He had a right to invade Iraq on his own but he didn't have the right to lie to Congress to get its authorization to use force.
All they have done is 'redefine' what war is. They call it police action. 'Hostilities' as you put it. This is NOT the intent of the constitution or the founders, who took a dim view of executive war powers. Even Lincoln had all of congress behind to squelch the 'rebellion'. So you can send drones into afghanistan, or pakistan.. or you can kill american citizens without due process, & support a president who makes war indiscriminately upon anyone he pleases.. But this is not constitutional america. It is a devolution.. a step backward in human development, where due process & the rule of law is overruled by despotic decree. You talk about jefferson.. presumably the tripolitan pirates. That was done by jefferson, & was the beginning of the marines. It was not deemed a 'war' but an act of international justice. There is a world of difference between the money & lives risked to secure shipping from pirates, & the massive wars of vietnam or iraq. But you are missing the picture with deflections. The purpose of congress is to declare war. The executive branch is to carry out the charge, not originate what wars it want to fight, & what dreams of military glory they long to fill. It is contrary to the core values of america.. due process.. innocent until proven guilty.. for the executive branch to presume to kill ANYONE based on their own will or whims. That is NOT their prerogative. They are supposed to be the action arm.. the enforcers of the judicial process, not the judge, jury, AND executioner. My problem is with the philosophical basis for the wars & 'hostilities'. Without due process, they are immoral & contrary to a people of law. The current standard is one for dictators & despots. It is NOT the standard of a free people. You can continue to deflect, or nit pick fine points, but that does not distract those who see the conflict of ideology.
It doesn't matter if 'Bush Lied!' or not; finishing off Saddam was the right thing to do. Waiting for him to die of old age was not an option, not to mention he constantly violated the cease fire almost daily and abused the oil for food and medicine arrangement. Good riddance. Most of the sniveling is over the aftermath, the 'nation building' farce. Islamic 'cultures' are generally incapable of that, so inevitably another dictator has to take over these countries or they remain in perpetual civil war. At least in the case of Iraq and Syria they're killing each other for a change instead of blowing up buses and subways and charity marathons in western cities, and hopefully they finally kill each other off; these civil wars are drawing terrorists from all over the world to kill each other, and that's a good thing for everybody else. Crying and whining over imaginary 'Constitutional violations' is just pompous posturing based on partisan political hubris.
No nation is better poised to defend itself than the us. We have tremendous resources, a warlike citizenry that is competent with firearms (more than most nations, anyway), a vast homeland that would be very difficult to invade or occupy, a thriving economy (when the govt isn't killing it with overtaxation & deficit spending), & an innovative, resourceful base of a war machine. We came up with the atomic bomb, which should be a sufficient deterrence on it's own. With our missiles & drone technology, we practically do not need a standing army.. certainly not in peacetime. That was the intent of the constitution, anyway. We could easily deter aggressors with just a threat & perhaps an occasional precautionary missile strike.. just so they know we are serious. Every 4th of July, we could pick the despot that congress votes worst in the world, & send a barrage of missiles at him. If we kill him, great! One less tyrant in the world. If we miss, he'd better consider changing his ways, or we'll try again next year. The point is, a few high tech weapons during peace time is all we need. We can have a small, professional navy, air force, & army. Their only function in peacetime is deterrence or emergency deployment. If the drums of war build, we can enlist more & train a bigger army, & make more tanks, jets, ships, missiles, & whatever else that is the latest & greatest killing method. There are no rules in war, & we can tell the rest of the world How It Is Going To Be. We can let the smaller nations bicker & fight with each other, if they want.. none of our business. And we can try to be neutral.. why pick sides in these stupid pissing contests? No one has attacked switzerland in nearly 300 yrs. They had a civil war in 1847, & have been neutral in europe since. Even hitler considered attacking it, but decided not to. The swiss had well trained citizen soldiers, & some good defensive positions high in the alps. Even for hitler, it was not worth the effort in attacking them. Deterrence through strength. We would not have to wait until some despot rose to power like hitler. Even putin is not a real threat to the us mainland. His concerns are with the old ussr, & europeans have not had a good rousing war for a long time.. they got to vicariously enjoy the serbian/bosnian conflict, but it was too far away from the traditional battlefield of europe: france. But if Angela Merkel starts getting real uppity.. if she mobilizes a bunch of troops, & wants to annex belgium or austria or poland.. we can let the euros handle if themselves. If it gets out of hand, or if she sends troop ships over to invade DC & burn it down, we can at least wait until the fires burn out, then we can nuke berlin, if we want to make a point. I'm making silly, extreme points here, but even these would be smarter & better than the current foreign policy of constant spending & meddling, which does not deter war any better, & a lot more american have to die & work to provide the war machine. War is an expense.. a major one, for a society. Deficit spending has shrouded that reality, but all the costs of war are still with us.
Without the basis of law, none are safe. I'm not complaining about sour grapes with bush.. i disagreed with the way it was done, & the obscure, vague threats to america, but NOW, i'm much more concerned with the current commander in chief. Then the one after... and after... once you open pandora's box, there is no getting the demons back in. People who love despotic rule would have no problem.. this is what you expect. But for a nation based on Law, due process, & checks & balances, this is a very BIG deal, & should not be poo pooed by anyone. WE pay for the wars, die in them, & kill in them. We EXPECT our representatives to use reason & common sense in determining any threats to our security. But the trumped up overreaches of the last 50 yrs or so are an OUTRAGE to a free people. We do not want to kill vietnamese, or iraqis, or russians, or koreans, or anyone who is of no threat to us. Yet we have been manipulated to do exactly this, in the name of american liberty.
BTW, that was a really sleazy debating tactic you took with phoebe.. she had her points & opinions. You have yours. But for you to imply mental instability for hers is a demeaning tactic, unworthy of public debate. Address the points, if you can, & offer a rebuttal or your own opinions supported with logic & facts. But smearing from the sidelines is a propaganda tactic of a defeated, empty poster. edit: this was in reference to mushrooms post..
Yea, I figured that. But please, explain to me where in the Constitution you find the United Nations. The moment you do, you and her are more then welcome to start a discussion at to how "lyin' to the UN" is "unconstitutional". You have to realize something here. I do not have a political agenda here. If you look at my posts, I am not trying to endorse anything, no viewpoint, no stance, nothing. Simply the truth. So you can continue to post reams of coprolite, it means nothing to me. In fact, I welcome you and Phoebe and anybody else to prove how something is "Unconstitutional". But if you can't prove anything and it is just your own opinion, do not get upset if I call you on it.
I don't know.. ask her. I was only appealing for rationality & calm discourse, using facts & evidence. Rereading it, her point was 'lying', more than 'the UN'. But your 'high ground' attempt is noted. Of course you have an agenda. You have a POV, & it comes from your basis of education, experience, & upbringing. You are not an empty shell, but present your opinions with passion & unction. And it is not, 'simply the truth', it is 'simply your opinion'. Go back to the OP. Take a few points & rebut them. Provide your opinion, & make your arguments. THAT is how a debate works, not smirking on the sidelines, taking beavis & butthead shots at those inside. Man up, & stand for your own values & opinions, rather than just tearing down others for fun.
