Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
timschochet

What Laura Ingraham said

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Hilts said:

Ingraham's rant is not about changing a poem. If she wanted to discuss that it might be a reasonable discussion depending how she approached it. Immigration is an important conversation that needs to happen. Curbing immigration should be on the table depending on our agreed upon goals. But those goals should not be 'eeewww, non-white people are gross!'

She didn't even flirt with this idea. She went full racist, and appealed to other racists. It fits in with whatever the GOP has crumbled into. It fits with Bannon complaining about workers in Silicon Valley. It fits with David Duke approving of Trump's commentary. It fits with Trump refusing to condemn white supremacists. It fits with numerous GOP politicians openly taking on Nazi views. She's either pandering to the vile underbelly of the GOP or she's part of it. Either way, she, and anyone who supports this racist crap, can burn in hell.

Seems to me, we have been discussing immigration for decades. The racist card always gets played, simply because immigrants are "not us."  The real argument needs to be whether our 1875 policies toward immigration are relevant in 2018. They are not. So now we need to decide what policies ought to be relevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, bueno said:

Seems to me, we have been discussing immigration for decades. The racist card always gets played, simply because immigrants are "not us."  The real argument needs to be whether our 1875 policies toward immigration are relevant in 2018. They are not. So now we need to decide what policies ought to be relevant.

You mean before income taxes, government subsidies and entitlements, when land rushes and homesteading were still the order of the day things were different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, bueno said:

Seems to me, we have been discussing immigration for decades. The racist card always gets played, simply because immigrants are "not us."  The real argument needs to be whether our 1875 policies toward immigration are relevant in 2018. They are not. So now we need to decide what policies ought to be relevant.

Go back another 100 years and what others ideas that were implemented back then aren’t relevant.

 

2nd amendment maybe?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, bueno said:

Seems to me, we have been discussing immigration for decades. The racist card always gets played, simply because immigrants are "not us."  The real argument needs to be whether our 1875 policies toward immigration are relevant in 2018. They are not. So now we need to decide what policies ought to be relevant.

Just to make sure we are on the same page - you disagree with this statement?

"We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength-from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ditkaless Wonders said:

You mean before income taxes, government subsidies and entitlements, when land rushes and homesteading were still the order of the day things were different.

They were different but not just because of those reasons. We were becoming an industrial power and needed bodies for factories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bueno said:

They were different but not just because of those reasons. We were becoming an industrial power and needed bodies for factories.

Grist for our mills, as it were.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, AAABatteries said:

Just to make sure we are on the same page - you disagree with this statement?

"We lead the world because, unique among nations, we draw our people—our strength-from every country and every corner of the world. And by doing so we continuously renew and enrich our nation. While other countries cling to the stale past, here in America we breathe life into dreams. We create the future, and the world follows us into tomorrow. Thanks to each wave of new arrivals to this land of opportunity, we're a nation forever young, forever bursting with energy and new ideas, and always on the cutting edge, always leading the world to the next frontier. This quality is vital to our future as a nation. If we ever closed the door to new Americans, our leadership in the world would soon be lost."

I do not entirely agree with that statement. I do not think our leadership in the world is immigrant dependent. I think our leadership in the world has to do with the opportunities we have that other people in other countries do not. For example, try to start and operate a business in Mexico. It is 100 times harder than here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, toshiba said:

Go back another 100 years and what others ideas that were implemented back then aren’t relevant.

 

2nd amendment maybe?

I can see where some could make an argument for that. However, living in a rural area, where the police can be an hour away and a cougar could create a life-threatening situation, I would disagree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bueno said:

I can see where some could make an argument for that. However, living in a rural area, where the police can be an hour away and a cougar could create a life-threatening situation, I would disagree.

 

Not to get too off on an tangent but, what does

 

Quote

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

have to do with cougars?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, toshiba said:

 

Not to get too off on an tangent but, what does

 

 

have to do with cougars?

LOL - I know you realize that I was talking about the feline kind, but how do you know whether I bought my .306 for self-defense or not? How do you know whether my wife's 45 (which she has pointed at a bear less than 30 feet from her) is for self-defense or not? How do you know whether y scary-looking stockless shotgun filled with rifled slugs is for home defense or not? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bueno said:

LOL - I know you realize that I was talking about the feline kind, but how do you know whether I bought my .306 for self-defense or not? How do you know whether my wife's 45 (which she has pointed at a bear less than 30 feet from her) is for self-defense or not? How do you know whether y scary-looking stockless shotgun filled with rifled slugs is for home defense or not? 

Now what that has to do with A well regulated Militia.

Edited by toshiba
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, toshiba said:

Not what that has to do with A well regulated Militia.

No, it is unlikely I will never need my firearms for a well-regulated militia, though in Idaho, all males are members of the state militia (not sure about other states). The problem is removing that clause and replacing it with just a simple statement that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is a very risky proposition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bueno said:

No, it is unlikely I will never need my firearms for a well-regulated militia, though in Idaho, all males are members of the state militia (not sure about other states). The problem is removing that clause and replacing it with just a simple statement that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed is a very risky proposition.

Why replace it at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Why replace it at all?

I don't know. You brought it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, the moops said:

Please recognize the difference between large amounts that were needed to industrialize and the smaller amounts needed for farm labor. and none at all. I said somewhere else that we ought to emulate  Canada's temporary worker policy, so obviously I don't believe in no immigration - I don't want illegal immigration, because frankly, there  are people out there (felons, dnarcoticos, etc.), that need to be kept out. I also think the number of immigrants should be limited - we don't need an open door policy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, bueno said:

Please recognize the difference between large amounts that were needed to industrialize and the smaller amounts needed for farm labor. and none at all. I said somewhere else that we ought to emulate  Canada's temporary worker policy, so obviously I don't believe in no immigration - I don't want illegal immigration, because frankly, there  are people out there (felons, dnarcoticos, etc.), that need to be kept out. I also think the number of immigrants should be limited - we don't need an open door policy.

Nobody "wants" or is "for" illegal immigration.  You are framing it the same way people talk about abortion.  Nobody is for it and "wants" it.  If it needs to take place or it happens under certain conditions than it is allowed and isn't a big deal.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, urbanhack said:

Nobody "wants" or is "for" illegal immigration.  You are framing it the same way people talk about abortion.  Nobody is for it and "wants" it.  If it needs to take place or it happens under certain conditions than it is allowed and isn't a big deal.  

Yet we have sanctuary cities.  I think it would not be difficult to fix our system - if we could frame the political debate around fixing something that is broken instead of inflamatory talking points. The problem is that a lot of the time, the problem is the country of origin - particularly when it comes to criminal background checks - took my ex-daughter-in-law 8 months to get through that process!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, bueno said:

Yet we have sanctuary cities.  I think it would not be difficult to fix our system - if we could frame the political debate around fixing something that is broken instead of inflamatory talking points. The problem is that a lot of the time, the problem is the country of origin - particularly when it comes to criminal background checks - took my ex-daughter-in-law 8 months to get through that process!

Also, let me know when you think we should go after the corporations who are going after that segment of labor without having to bear any of the burden.  They are getting a free pass for the most part in all of this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, toshiba said:

Just repeal, outdated.

Then there will be attempts to outlaw all firearms. Not that there aren't now, but the seconsd amendment makes that impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, urbanhack said:

Also, let me know when you think we should go after the corporations who are going after that segment of labor without having to bear any of the burden.  They are getting a free pass for the most part in all of this.

Can't argue with you there, but that has pretty much been the focus for the past decade. The problem is that they go after mistakes on the I-9 forms of all companies rather than targeting specific ones.

Edited by bueno

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, bueno said:

Then there will be attempts to outlaw all firearms. Not that there aren't now, but the seconsd amendment makes that impossible.

Will of the people

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, toshiba said:

Will of the people

There is a reason the Constitution is so hard to change and it has to do with protecting us against the tyranny of the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, bueno said:

I can see where some could make an argument for that. However, living in a rural area, where the police can be an hour away and a cougar could create a life-threatening situation, I would disagree.

Agreed.  As an extension of the argument, try and run A top of the line resort in mar a lago where you cannot apply for, and be granted, several foreign worker permits for non-nationalized citizens to cook the food and clean up trash.  How would it survive otherwise?   I mean, buy American and all that, just not where it hits my bottom line because of wage/performance issues.   Other stuff....

Edited by zoonation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, zoonation said:

Agreed.  As an extension of the argument, try and run A top of the line resort in mar a lago where you cannot apply for, and be granted, several foreign worker permits for non-nationalized citizens to cook the food and clean up trash.  How would it survive otherwise?   I mean, buy American and all that, just not where it hits my bottom line because of wage/performance issues.   Other stuff....

Comes back to the need to reform our immigration laws which is a related, but somewhat separate issue. Are "non-documented" workers at the resort paid minimum wage?

How do you get around Form I-9?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, bueno said:

There is a reason the Constitution is so hard to change and it has to do with protecting us against the tyranny of the majority.

Tyranny?  Imagine trying to escape that and arriving to the BS that you encounter when you try and enter America...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toshiba said:

Tyranny?  Imagine trying to escape that and arriving to the BS that you encounter when you try and enter America...

Different topic. Big difference between tyranny of the majority and tyranny of the rulers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎8‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 9:47 AM, toshiba said:

Go back another 100 years and what others ideas that were implemented back then aren’t relevant.

 

2nd amendment maybe?

So the possibility of tyranny is no longer relevant?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soonerman said:

So the possibility of tyranny is no longer relevant?

In terms of the 2nd Amendment preventing it? No. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soonerman said:

 

On 8/20/2018 at 9:47 AM, toshiba said:

Go back another 100 years and what others ideas that were implemented back then aren’t relevant.

 

2nd amendment maybe?

So the possibility of tyranny is no longer relevant?

 

We all see Trump, so we know it is relevant.

Edited by toshiba

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.