Rock the Vote, Don’t Tip the Vote Over
The world used to be a much nicer place. I know this because I’m a man and that means that I read books. Books and dogs and the spirits of liquor are a man’s best friend, whereas a woman’s best friend is a fun house mirror that makes her look even fatter than she is and a tape recorder shaped like a man’s head she can bitch to about it.
The only mistake man ever made was valuing a woman’s opinion at more than the worth of a dead dog. They can’t do shit. They can’t think for shit. What the fuck is the point. Also, women shouldn’t vote.
Here’s a quotable quote for you:
“A sure sign of an empire’s decline is the rise of feminism.”
-Sir John Glubb, 1897-1986
Feminism is that term they used in Deep Impact for that big asteroid that’s going to fuck everything on Earth. I forget what the term is because I’m a man and I have more important things to do than remember or look up the minutiae of some stupid fantasy world. It meant that everything was about to get completely fucked in a terrible way and that’s good enough. Sir John knew this about feminism for one reason: feminism begets women voting and women voting begets a system of government so fucked up that it picks up the platter of civilization and throws it against the wall like a plate of spaghetti in the hands of a petulant toddler.
It’s not because women have haired brained ideas either! Or because the only reason women ever work for a cause is to piss off their fathers and really have absolutely no understanding of the true nature of social activism.
Women vote with their sexual organs. That’s the problem. They don’t even get the chance to fuck up the decision with their heads, which are full of mulch and chicken shit. That sounds like a good thing, but it actually isn’t. It’s actually a bad thing.
Like usual, it’s not women’s fault. Who can blame them for voting with their sex drive? Politicians are powerful, sinister bastards who love babies. Women love that. Of course they’re going to vote for the candidate they’d most like to fuck! It’s the only thing they can think of when they’ve got their pretty little overwhelmed heads in the voting booth and the wand or pencil or chad-puncher or whatever the hell they’re using to vote with in their hand.
Letting women vote is like men shopping when they’re hungry and everything in the store has Elvira on the package. Fuck. Ten packs of frozen corn dogs and fried onions teaches you that’s a stupid idea. Then you don’t do it anymore. With women, it’s the same thing, except their always hungry. Hungry for a sexual carnality that has no place in the processes of government.
Women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. In the best case scenario, it gives married men the advantage of having two votes (because a good wife shuts the hell up and votes with the brain of the family). And that’s bad because being married is a mistake in the first place. Should the government be decided by the betrothed? Those of us bewitched, beguiled, bedeviled by the not as good sex?
No. That’s stupid.
Related Articles:
April 14th, 2006 at 4:43 pm - IP Man-Hash: b09524cfe42bd
Here’s a fun fact. Take two polititions. One is a 45 five year old white male who knows how to run the country the right way, because he is a man. The other, a 25 year old male who looks like he can be on the cover of a GQ magazine but has no political sense what-so-ever. Now take a total of 10 women and have them vote on who they would like to be their next president. I absolutly fucking positive that all 10 would vote for the 25 year old. And how do I know this. Because I have listened to these exact words come out of so many womens mouths it almost makes me sick. “Hey Jessica? Who did you vote for”, I ask. “The other guy because hes cuter”. You are without a doubt completely correct about this one Dick. I think its time we enforced the womens suffurage act.
April 14th, 2006 at 4:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: f3ae1ac46a2e3
We gave them the right to vote. We can take it away any time we want.
-Dick
April 14th, 2006 at 9:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 7fdd7e454b2cb
To this day I’m still firmly in the belief that Kerry’s only reason for picking up Edwards as a VP was so his campaign would look more palatable to the incompetent demographic of voters. I.E., women.
Right on as usual Dick.
April 16th, 2006 at 1:28 pm - IP Man-Hash: 3b14a63bd139c
Well, it´s put a bit boldly but I agree in the essence.
Of course, many man don´t give a shit about politics either,
but it´s like so often: dumb (man) - and dumber (women)
“Women vote with their sexual organs. “: niecely said !
Cheers,
April 16th, 2006 at 8:40 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76834b71048e0
The biggest flaw with democracy is that all the idiots get to vote.
August 18th, 2006 at 3:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
August 18th, 2006 at 3:58 pm - IP Man-Hash: 732987aa5d932
I am not into politics at all. However, I say that one of two things should be done.
1. Voting should be MANDATORY i.e. everyone should be required to vote.
or
2. You should have to prove your competence, or EARN your right to vote i.e. paying taxes, military service, ect ect. (read Heinlein “Starship Troopers).
–Strength and Honor–
August 18th, 2006 at 7:21 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Indeed. Brilliant book. So you suggest full citizenship (right to vote) be awarded upon completion of military service or tour.
It really seems like a good idea. Wonder what a society built like that would look like. Certainly few if any women voting, that’s for sure.
August 23rd, 2006 at 1:09 pm - IP Man-Hash: fed7ffb1142fd
Or maybe people that do prove their competence should recieve more than one vote. I.E. if you pay your taxes you get one vote, if you complete military service you get two ect ect.
-Strength and Honor-
August 24th, 2006 at 11:48 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Interesting idea, abaddon.
We discussed this back a while ago, in the context (IIRC) of Starship Troopers and Nevil Shute’s novel, In the Wet. Both worth reading, though Starship Troopers has probably aged better.
Shute proposed a multiple voting system based upon accomplishments such as honorable military service, a post-secondary degree, raising two children to the age of 14 without divorcing, etc.
Heinlein himself had other voting proposals in Expanded Universe. The only ones I recall were having to solve a quadratic equation, or, having to deposit a troy ounce of gold.
I don’t see the Starship Troopers solution as applying very well to a highly pacific democracy. It might work well in the US, Britain or France. Any country with a drafted army or militia, forget it, obviously. Of course, it’s also worth remembering that Heinlein characterized this as civil service — which could certainly theoretically include things like the Peace Corps. That still wouldn’t be very effective in a country like, say, Switzerland.
-wolfe
August 24th, 2006 at 7:56 pm - IP Man-Hash: 038b3f7f5976e
However the precept remains for all democracies. I lean torwards a multiple vote system myself. However there has to be a way to prove your competence for multiple votes in different countries. Maybe in a highly economic/industrial country you may get 2 votes for starting and maintaining your own buisness ect ect.
My point being for those that haven’t got it, is that there should be a way for the industrious/producers/whatever to have more say than saaaaay a welfare queen, or some guy that hasn’t had a job for a good portion of his life.
-Strength and Honor-
August 25th, 2006 at 12:30 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I’m certainly tempted by it, abaddon. Yeah, starting your own business, graduating with highest honors (magna cum laude), getting any post-secondary degree, completing any professional apprenticeship (e.g. electrician, plumber, etc.), being the CEO of a company with more than 10 non-related full-time employees, in the military (or honorable discharge from same), being member of a professional body (doctor, architect, lawyer, engineer)… all those are possible qualifications.
One thing though: you want to ensure that a high degree of social/voter mobility would be possible. In other words, you don’t want to create a caste system with an underclass.
And that point greatly concerns me, and threatens any such proposal.
Well, that and the fact it’s unimplementable. Unless some major country (like one of the G-8) hits the wall financially and semi-collapses.
-wolfe
August 25th, 2006 at 4:27 pm - IP Man-Hash: 6897e3ddf8ad0
abaddon and wolfe, some may argue this system exists and is fact in place and equilibrated against exactly your concerns. What it would be called, I have no idea. What is certainly true is that those with the means have the ability to vote yeay or nay on some acts being legal for them personally and their world. It’s called the high priced attorney.
-Dick
August 25th, 2006 at 11:23 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
I’d never thought of it that way. Of course it’s based entirely upon money (and political influence), so not precisely what I had in mind. That said, it’s a disturbingly good point.
-wolfe
October 30th, 2006 at 5:13 pm - IP Man-Hash: 2f2d948528fdf
i wish i was able to vote. then id vote webb[d] to be VA senator. im so depressed. i really want to go to the fundraiser rally in arlington. thats nearly an hour away. and i can’t drive myself there since i dont have a license, and even if i did i wouldnt be allowed to because it’s arlington. but anyways, yes it’s extremely idiotic how some women just vote for whoever’s better looking, i agree. hard to believe people do that…
October 31st, 2006 at 12:10 am - IP Man-Hash: a5d80956a3e6c
Since when have politicians been good-looking?
October 31st, 2006 at 2:14 am - IP Man-Hash: adf74f2589c44
Since they held power.
-Dick
October 31st, 2006 at 4:44 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Wolfe, I personally view patriotism and libertarians mixing as well as oil and water. In fact, I contend it’s the quintessential oxymoron. Sure, it’s easy to pay lip service to it. I, for instance, should have foregone my education and a year of my life to voluntarily join military training, were I a patriot in the finest sense of the word.
Try and introduce the ‘earned vote’ principle to the American electoral elligible populace and expect a bloody rebellion on your hands as they run amok putting their fantasies of overthrowing domestic tyrannical governments with a .44 into practice. And drill a few ATF skulls (a. k. a. stormtroopers) in the proces.
There is, however, also the remote possibility you’ll be just as amorphous and apathetic as under the current fraudulent administration’s flagrant perversions of government and executive.
October 31st, 2006 at 4:49 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
legislature* and executive
October 31st, 2006 at 5:11 am - IP Man-Hash: 4555637db20cf
Touché!
October 31st, 2006 at 5:54 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Thank you for helping me make my mind up. I was leaning to Webb, since I’m not a big fan of Allen, and I rather liked Webb’s book, Born Fighting. I also think Webb’s views on women in the military are excellent. However, if you as a female girl are that strong on Webb, clearly I’ve made an error in my estimation of the man.
Allen it is!
-wolfe
October 31st, 2006 at 6:55 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Note the leal adhesion to the NRA backed fallacious legal interpretation of the second amendment, time and again contradictory to case law and established Supreme Court interpretation of it, as well as his abiding to the NRA’s red carnet heart and soul. Including the assault weapon ban.
It seems military rifles restricted to semi-auto just doesn’t pass muster with gun nuts. I mean, what self respecting ‘milita man’ doesn’t have a .50 browning machine gun and settles for an pansy pants light fifty?
Notice also his blatant lie about the D. C. handgun ban being unconstitutional. As well as his ludicrous idea of firearms on a pressurised aircraft instead of, say, tasers or heave duty stun guns. Neither mace is that good an idea in the confined space of the cockpit.
His other stated political and economical views and inclination point him out to be yet another unscrupulous anarcho-capitalist in the NRA’s pocket.
Coincidence? I think not.
But that ugly mug of his ought to get him more than a few lady electoral constituents. He’s a shoo-in.
October 31st, 2006 at 7:02 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Some truly Godless people in that country of yours.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:16 am - IP Man-Hash: f24a9ea7317dd
Yes we could do something so blatantly unconstitutional that would make military an even more powerful force than it has already become. But I have a better idea, see there were smart men untouched by secularism, feminism, marxism or any other dumbfuck lady ideology, these men were called our founders.
A return to constitutional republicanism, where the executive is NOT elected by popular vote mobacracy, where only land owning males can vote their representatives and senators into office.
But, Americans have been neutered and feminized and stripped of their Gods, thus wil soon have no senate or representation but only have popular vote of federal governor/executive who is part of the North American Union, all the fabric of the republic lost completely just to compete with China, and the EU.
Pathetic.
October 31st, 2006 at 9:50 am - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Yep. We call them Democrats, abortionists, and gun control nuts.
I think you rather miss the point. No one’s advocating we follow Heinlein’s plan. I think it’s interesting to examine from a theoretical basis; my conclusion is that it would lead to a bigger, less effective military than we need or want, and a far, far bigger, more powerful government than we need or want.
Actually, if you’re talking about a return to what the founders wanted, that would mean a repeal of the 17th amendment (and quite a few others), and elimination of direct election of senators. (Or are you only in favor of the founders’ intentions where you happen to like what they say?)
It’s not clear to me that that would be a step forward.
I assume you’d be ok with amendments 1-12 (since 1-10 were made at the same time the constitution was drafted, and 11-12 were in the lifetimes of the founders).
But what about 13? Does slavery return? What about 14 (due process etc)? What about 15 (right to vote, regardless of race)?
I can see tossing 16 (income tax). That’d have the good side-effect of making the federal government less powerful, but how do you plan to deal with the federal debt without heavy revenues? Default?
19, fair enough. Toss that one. 20 seems sensible, given the advent of modern technology. We don’t really need 4 months of lame-duckness. 22 seems consistent with the founders’ behavior, but it’s certainly not something they put in the constitution. I could go on, but suffice to say, your plan seems to leave some unanswered questions.
That’s certainly an interesting vision of the future. Have you checked to see how popular such an idea would be in Mexico and Canada? To essentially surrender their sovereignty to an entity 10 times their size (in the case of Canada) and three times their size (in the case of Mexico)?
Moreover competition with the EU as an argument? Come on. The West of Europe is in a demographic death-spiral, and the East is being economically throttled by Euro monetary controls they have no influence over. The EU is a ludicrous model for anyone to dream of imposing… only the backing of the French, and the disaster of two world wars that started in Europe could have propelled it as far as its been propelled.
Your putative North American Union? Canada would, I think rightly, see it as a blatant grab for the world’s largest reserves of fresh water, and the world’s second largest oil reserves. Mexico wouldn’t be too thrilled; they’d view it as being conquered by gringos.
Such an event would mean surrendering control to the US-based Democratic Party. Roughly half of the US, 80% of Canada, and 80% of Mexico would hate that.
Simply not going to happen. It would be more productive to wear a tinfoil hat to protect yourself against space lasers than worry about the danger of an NAU anytime in the next few generations.
-wolfe
October 31st, 2006 at 10:07 am - IP Man-Hash: 077ea2ae0d832
I was railing against the NAU. But if you think some powerful people in the US aren’t trying to make it happen, you should read about it.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:57 am - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Of course all Democrats are Godless and only gun nuts can Bible thump… Not lovingly embracing the culture of the gun sees you dispatched to hell for not being a proper Christian. Only gun nuts are compatible with the Bible’s teachings, ey?
And gun control nuts are Godless? You are sadly, gravely mistaken.
I’d settle for the pro-slaughter lamers, “free thinkers”, neo communists, evolutionists, pseudo conservatives and homophobic, heathenistic tree huggers being such, though.
The goddess. I still think unclean thoughts about her leafy arse each time I take a dump.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:20 pm - IP Man-Hash: fecff644282fd
I have to agree, women vote according to thier emotions… I know this because my mother, sister and ex-wife all did it that way.
If I were to go ask any female in my office, I would bet my next paycheck that they would do the same.
I cant even describe to you how fucking pathetic that is in my eyes, women and politics just do not mix.
Can you imagine the turmoil if a women is ever president? I am reading more and more articles about a female pres in 2008!!!
I swear Im leaving the fucking country if that happens….
October 31st, 2006 at 3:45 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
And, apparently, so do NRA constituents. That and the commy lynching, government disbanding, private venture legislature, judiciary and executive, anarcho-capitalist voices in their heads.
Hearing people talk about what the second amendment putatively means only goes to show that opinions are like asses, and most are unwiped.
United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and lots and lots more case law since then.
Bearing a concealed glock 19 is neither a constitutional nor, much less, a God given one. It’s your privilege to help a few Austrians make ends meet and a few starving investors afford a new Maybach.
Remember. “Well regulated”. Though many see things as quite the opposite, good (thorough) regulation is the antithesis of no regulation. And “militia”, last time I checked, is not congruent to the general populace.
October 31st, 2006 at 3:49 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
And, apparently, so do NRA constituents vote. Admittedly, they also listen to the commy lynching, government disbanding, private venture legislature, judiciary, executive and law enforcement wishing, anarcho-capitalist voices in their heads.
Hearing people talk about what the second amendment putatively means only goes to show that opinions are like asses, and most are unwiped.
United States Supreme Court in U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) and lots and lots more case law since then.
Bearing a concealed glock 19 is neither a constitutional nor, much less, a God given one. It’s your privilege to help a few Austrians make ends meet and a few starving investors afford a new Maybach.
Remember. “Well regulated”. Though many see things as quite the opposite, good regulation is the antithesis of no regulation. And “militia”, last time I checked, is not congruent to the general populace.
October 31st, 2006 at 11:06 pm - IP Man-Hash: 84f7c5452f5d2
-I see what you’re saying about society becoming homogenous on this continent, however in my view it’s almost impossible for it not to (in the next few centuries). What is needed is CHANGE. Maybe a complete restructuring of our idea of how governments work, maybe not. However I do know that it does need to change. Honestly, I find your views extremely regressive, and that good sir, is pathetic.-
-Strength and Honor-
November 1st, 2006 at 5:29 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Sony, you’re citing an undefended and unenforced Supreme Court case based on very shaky constitutional grounds. Well, frankly, none, if you’re a man. (See Ross). As for well regulated, I think it’s your lack of knowledge of English grammar. Note the comma in the second amendment. Nuff said.
I shan’t always be present to correct your misconceptions, so make the most of it while you can.
Best,
-wolfe
November 1st, 2006 at 5:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 21a161ddf0e8a
Don’t you know Jesus and Judas walked around the Roman Empire in hoodied cloaks armed with guns killing everyone in a red blooded cape that they came across?
November 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
You haven’t corrected anything, as far as change is implied. Neither are they misconceptions in need of intervention nor your input actual correction, per how I see things.
That, I do try. But try as I might…
Regards.
November 1st, 2006 at 5:59 pm - IP Man-Hash: 21a161ddf0e8a
abaddon, it’s your views that are regressive from my study of history.
Sprawling, godless, impersonal, multicultural, unstable empires are nothing new, it’s happened from Greece(after Alexander’s Macedonian friends warned him time and time again that Asia was unfit for Greek systems of governance) to Rome, and they all fell hard.
Let’s not just talk about an honest broke Mexican coming here to work illegally, because his government sees it as a way to shift the blame to the “Evil racist Americans”. Mexico is a nation so corrupt and degenerate that their military makes black ops incursions into our border, escorting drug traffikers to be sure their poison sells to our kids and they have an inexhuastable stream of blood money to fund their cartels. That is an act of war, but fortunately for them we’re too busy with Islamic radicals overseas. However, if an Islamic terrorist gets across the border from Mexico cloaked as a drug traffiker or illegal worker, with help of Mexican military, they will recieve a massive military strike.
Canada is a nation with a long and stable history of democracy, but culturally it as foreign to the US as old Europe. Do you see any Americans begging to be part of the EU? Canadian policies on drugs and social issues are extreme liberal, and I heard some retired Canadian politician saying Bush was going to break the Space Weapons Treaty so he could “launch nuclear attacks on ET’s, which could cause galactic war”. Fucking twilight zone anyone? Canadians need to stop doing so much drugs and get their feet on the ground culturally, before any red blooded American would ever become one with them.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:12 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Indeed, son. I’ve just had a revelatory epiphany along those lines.
Doh. Obvious. Cap thy neighbour then load the other clip and all that jazz.
All in the Book!
Colt is thine god, Congress His pantheon of saints, the NRA His flock and Sir Heinlein His prophet. Each slug’s a faithful prayer, each gun a pleasing offering.
Don’t miss any of those bloody stormtroopers’… err… ATF devils’ skulls now!
-Old Land’s Elder Nation’s national.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:14 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/contributors/509.
Amen.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: 980cc8a8ac1a7
Empires mop the floor with Republics. Literally. Plus, they’re heaps manlier and cooler.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:19 pm - IP Man-Hash: 21a161ddf0e8a
Doh. Obvious. Cap thy neighbour then load the other clip and all that jazz.
All in the Book!
Colt is thine god, Congress His pantheon of saints, the NRA His flock and Sir Heinlein His prophet. Each slug’s a faithful prayer, each gun a pleasing offering.
Don’t miss any of those bloody stormtroopers’… err… ATF devils’ skulls now!
-Old Land’s Elder Nation’s national.
The ATF in Waco was a disgusting example of liberal power and gun control gone wild. Wolfe defends gun rights here for the purposes of a polite society with less crime, which is true. But my main thing about gun rights is a chance for a society to defend itself from tyrants, like Russia/Germany in WW2.
November 1st, 2006 at 6:32 pm - IP Man-Hash: 21a161ddf0e8a
You only think that because Republics in the West are already on their suicide death spirals and it’s all you’ve lived to see. In thriving republics that don’t interfere in world affairs or in the lives of their own people with anti-social programs men are plenty manly. They have to be.
Masculinity expressed through warfare and conquest is the last resort of manhood, from males like us unable to be gauraunteed a stable career because of offshoring and other corporate sellout schemes, and unable to commit the most fundamental act of man, raising and keeping together a family for life, which has been desroyed by feminism, which is why we’re all here.
I wonder how feminism really came full circle. I sense treachery all through its essense. How could a movement from a bunch of closet dyke radicals take over the whole world and ruin it so? I sense it had funding and covert support from higher masculine powers, but estimating from whom and why would only be speculation.
November 2nd, 2006 at 6:38 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Yeah, the Persian Empire really did well against the Greek Republics.
The German Empire rocked the Casbah vs. the American Republic.
The Romans became so much more powerful when they converted from Republic to Empire.
Yeah.
-wolfe
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:37 pm - IP Man-Hash: 0363c503d25ea
webb and michael j fox were absolutely amazing.
November 2nd, 2006 at 7:55 pm - IP Man-Hash: 76cebfba7c181
Yeah, Paul Hellyer (Defense Minister 1963-1967). He represents Canada about as much as Ramsey Clark represents the USA. In other words, what you say is (as you suggest) silliness, but I applaud your phrasing of it.
Hellyer is a senile nut, sad to say.
But I agree with you SotS on this: neither Canada nor the US are eager to unite. It’d mean about 6 Republican Senators and 20 Democratic Senators added to the mix. Not a good deal for the US… or Canada. Canada would import herself a whole illegal problem. Not fun. The US and Canada would fight over drug policies — there, I’m libertarian. Never took a toke of marijuana in my life, never even knowingly seen the stuff, but I don’t see the point of declaring it a controlled substance.
Don’t mistake my statements here as narrowing gun rights. Don’t mistake the fact that while I disagree strongly with some things that you say for a disagreement with that most fundamental rationale for the second amendment. I concur entirely with that particular proposition.
That’s the primary reason for the second amendment; the rest is a glorious side-effect.
An armed, educated and cultured society is free and polite. All three legs of the tripod are necessary. Some figure you can be educated and cultured and clamp down on gun rights. Others figure you can have open gun rights and ignore education and culture. Too bad. They fail.
-wolfe
November 2nd, 2006 at 8:04 pm - IP Man-Hash: 84f7c5452f5d2
son of the suns said:
abaddon, it’s your views that are regressive from my study of history.
-Well we all have our views.-
Sprawling, godless, impersonal, multicultural, unstable empires are nothing new, it’s happened from Greece(after Alexander’s Macedonian friends warned him time and time again that Asia was unfit for Greek systems of governance) to Rome, and they all fell hard.
-I understand this point. Its true, however many of those societies are dead as well. I will say that NO Matriarchal society has survived for too long or advanced themselves AT ALL. Your idea to regress to a Patriarchal society, circa 1800’s or so, where Male landowners were the only ones that could vote isn’t workable in any way in my view. For one there are a LOT more people now, two it would disenfrancise a MAJORITY of people from electing a public representative and I think there’s something in the US Constitution about that, also something about slavery as well. Thats what a lot of us “poor folk” would be. -
Let’s not just talk about an honest broke Mexican coming here to work illegally, because his government sees it as a way to shift the blame to the “Evil racist Americans”. Mexico is a nation so corrupt and degenerate that their military makes black ops incursions into our border, escorting drug traffikers to be sure their poison sells to our kids and they have an inexhuastable stream of blood money to fund their cartels.
-I agree with your views on immigration, however I think that the real evil lies within the companies that hire said immigrants, and our lax enforcement of immigration law, as well I think that the “anchor babies” idea, being that if a woman comes over here illegally, and has a child, that child is now a citizen and she gets to stay. You should have to prove citizenship before your child can become one.
I know Mexico is a corrupt nation, and I am sure that Mexico has commited proverbial acts of war upon American soil, however is that the country itself or a squad of Mexican police officers trying to score some money? Most immigrants from Mexico are basicly a cheap labor base in my view, and sure they want a better life for their kids, however they’re taking the path of least resistance however hard that may be for them. If all of them went back and forced CHANGE in their own country, I think that things would be better for them there. -
That is an act of war, but fortunately for them we’re too busy with Islamic radicals overseas. However, if an Islamic terrorist gets across the border from Mexico cloaked as a drug traffiker or illegal worker, with help of Mexican military, they will recieve a massive military strike.
-No I doubt that they would, I think that immigration policy would definitely shift to a much harder stance, however Mexico is a neighboring country and its not that logical to start a war with your neighbor when your resources are halfway across the world.
Canada is a nation with a long and stable history of democracy, but culturally it as foreign to the US as old Europe. Do you see any Americans begging to be part of the EU? Canadian policies on drugs and social issues are extreme liberal, and I heard some retired Canadian politician saying Bush was going to break the Space Weapons Treaty so he could “launch nuclear attacks on ET’s, which could cause galactic war”. Fucking twilight zone anyone? Canadians need to stop doing so much drugs and get their feet on the ground culturally, before any red blooded American would ever become one with them.
-You’re evading the point here sots, all I was saying was that things needed to changed/revised. Our system of governance while good, needs to be revamped in order to better reflect the living conditions of modern society. I simply presented an IDEA of how to change it while still working within the confines of the US Constitution. I don’t know if the idea is a sound one however, like all things in nature, if we don’t change then we will be either forced to change or we will die as a nation.-
-Strength and Honor-