America and immigration.

Greoric said:
Right. So to recap, the major demographic making up 19th century United States were Hispanics? Not English? Germans? French? But Hispanics, yes?
Click to expand...

very poor recap...but no "hispanics" were not the major demographic...any other recaps you have questions about?
 
Bald1 said:
Built by immigrants, not on immigration. There is a difference.
Click to expand...

Assuming you actually are intending a semantic difference, you are still wrong.

Unless you would have the United States as it was c. 1800, the American economic superpower was definitively built "on immigration" in every bit of the sense that the American state was built "by immigrants."
 
when one party supports or crafts a policy of unfettered mass immigration to get votes (or for whatever reason), it is an outright subversion of the democratic integrity of the state. it approaches something on the order of treason.

would democrats be OK with republicans doing the same thing. Let's say the vast majority of immigrants coming from Mexico were found most likely to vote for Republican causes. Calipornia would raise the money all by themselves and build a wall you could see from the moon.
 
Toothless King said:
2A is ALREADY restricted for a long ass time.

but yet you had to bring up "strapped grenades to your chest" or "10 y/o buys assault rifle" to help with your point?


Shit makes no sense, son
Click to expand...
I think the point is,
"The rates of gun violence in the 10 states with the weakest gun laws are more than three times higher than those in the 10 states with the strongest gun laws."
And,
"While the report does not assess the impact of specific laws, it does note previous examples of how specific laws have affected gun crime. For example, when Connecticut implemented laws requiring a permit to purchase a gun and mandated background checks, gun-related homicides dropped 40 percent. In contrast, when Missouri eliminated the same requirements, its gun homicide rate increased by 25 percent."
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/10/new-study-gun-laws-violence-states/
 
kenetics said:
How convenient now huh ? Lol
Click to expand...

Of course. After you build the most functional free society in the history of the world, you might as well establish laws to protect it from the very shit you escaped.

Not sure how that's controversial.
 
The ScorpioN said:
Of course. After you build the most functional free society in the history of the world, you might as well establish laws to protect it from the very shit you escaped.

Not sure how that's controversial.
Click to expand...
US issues about 500,000 -1,000,000 green cards each year. Yet, that is still not enough. We have to open our border for anybody in the world to come and go as they wish.

Lunatic leftists i am telling ya
 
Greoric said:
I can almost guarantee I know where you're going here, and this will be another great learning opportunity for you. What part of the amendment makes "shall not be infringed" dependent?
Click to expand...

Sentence structure.

Let's look at this another way.

A well regulated insulin maintenance program, being necessary to the health of a diabetic, the right of the people to keep and inject insulin, shall not be infringed.

If you were a doctor, would you hand out the above axiom to your patients and simply insist on the underlined fragment above, which most likely would kill them if they ignored the entire sentence as a complete thought?

Or would you interpret the aforementioned as a complete sentence, whereby insulin injections must be regulated in order to insure stabilized blood sugar levels?
 
helltoupee said:
Sentence structure.

Let's look at this another way.

A well regulated insulin maintenance program, being necessary to the health of a diabetic, the right of the people to keep and inject insulin, shall not be infringed.

If you were a doctor, would you hand out the above axiom to your patients and simply insist on the underlined fragment above, which most likely would kill them if they ignored the entire sentence as a complete thought?

Or would you interpret the aforementioned as a complete sentence, whereby insulin injections must be regulated in order to insure stabilized blood sugar levels?
Click to expand...

What about the other part of the sentence is informative to the second?
 
The ScorpioN said:
Of course. After you build the most functional free society in the history of the world, you might as well establish laws to protect it from the very shit you escaped.

Not sure how that's controversial.
Click to expand...

Beautiful post.
 
Trotsky said:
Assuming you actually are intending a semantic difference, you are still wrong.

Unless you would have the United States as it was c. 1800, the American economic superpower was definitively built "on immigration" in every bit of the sense that the American state was built "by immigrants."
Click to expand...

It doesn't look like you're appreciating that there are differences of immigration. Not all cultures, people, and populations are the same.
 
deltapapha said:
when one party supports or crafts a policy of unfettered mass immigration to get votes (or for whatever reason), it is an outright subversion of the democratic integrity of the state. it approaches something on the order of treason.

would democrats be OK with republicans doing the same thing. Let's say the vast majority of immigrants coming from Mexico were found most likely to vote for Republican causes. Calipornia would raise the money all by themselves and build a wall you could see from the moon.
Click to expand...
Good thing for us that nobody is doing that.
 
Toothless King said:
US issues about 500,000 -1,000,000 green cards each year. Yet, that is still not enough. We have to open our border for anybody in the world to come and go as they wish.

Lunatic leftists i am telling ya
Click to expand...
https://media.giphy.com/media/:eek::eek::eek:vFsTHxXd96/giphy.gif
 
calavera2 said:
very poor recap...but no "hispanics" were not the major demographic...any other recaps you have questions about?
Click to expand...

You just mentioned they were? In any event, who besides Europeans presided under the the governance of the US in the 19th century?
 
HomerThompson said:
His post was idiotic, and disingenuous. That's hardly an argument.

Crazy liberals, RRARRRRR!!!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe not, but I was just responding directly to your gif. It's all I ever see you post anymore. I'm only on here intermittently, but our social contract discussion is the last good college try I've seen you give.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,186
Messages
55,474,687
Members
174,787
Latest member
Biden's Diaper

Share this page

Back
Top