User Profile: The Third Archon

The Third Archon

Member Since: November 02, 2010

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • March 2, 2015 at 12:45pm

    Well if you’re referring to the brief window of time around 2008, they also held the Presidency at the time, so…

  • March 2, 2015 at 12:39pm

    You might not LIKE what I have to say, but the fact of the matter is that that is the choice before us–either liberalize the immigration laws, OR allocate VASTLY more resources to the immigration system so that the INCREDIBLY complicated and restrictive laws we CURRENTLY have can actually be enforced.

    But it’s not an ACCIDENT that we are in the situation we are in now–we simply HAVEN’T allocated sufficient resources to do what the law purports to do in the status quo (namely, remove all those who, de jure, are unlawfully present–to say nothing of the processing of the cases of those going through the immigration system, whether through voluntary attempt to comply with the requirements to lawfully immigrate, or those placed into such a system involuntarily for alleged and/or actual violations it).

  • [2] March 2, 2015 at 12:31pm

    YOU might not. I personally reject theological doctrine and holy texts as a basis for the law of a secular state–to say NOTHING of the WISDOM of basing policy on baseless superstition.

  • [-2] March 2, 2015 at 12:28pm

    LBJ didn’t lose Vietnam–AMERICA lost Vietnam the second it got involved in that pointless conflict. You can say the same thing for WWI. And in fact, there probably wouldn’t have BEEN a WWII (or at least, not a fascist rise to power and a Holocaust) if the European powers had listened to Woodrow Wilson and not pushed for such punitive terms of peace for Germany.

    Responses (4) +
  • [-5] March 2, 2015 at 12:24pm

    On the other hand, if you were concerned about the safety of your fledgling state, particularly threats from Iran and/or the Islamic world (which is not exactly the most stable part of the world currently, for that matter), carving it out of the British Mandate for Palestine was PROBABLY a bad idea…

    Florida would have been a lot safer. Or any other land these purported American Zionists might have–after all, if they’re so unconditionally supportive of the existence of a “Jewish state,” why aren’t they putting their money where their mouths are and ponying up some land?

    Responses (3) +
  • March 2, 2015 at 12:07pm

    You don’t know how the American immigration system really works, do you?

  • March 2, 2015 at 12:05pm

    Actually, that would be EXTREMELY expensive. If the jobs and the number of those jobs are the same, from a tax perspective it doesn’t make any difference whether they’re occupied by American citizens or immigrants–the tax revenue would be the same. More importantly, it would cost an astronomical amount of money to deport the dozen million or so immigrants here unlawfully AND those coming in, AND to continue to that indefinitely (that is, to continue to deport those attempting to come in at the same rate they are coming in–anything less, obviously, would allow the same situation to recur, because there would be a net increase, even after deportations. of those unlawfully present).

    That’s not to say some might see that as a price worth paying, however it WOULD require an allocation of resources FAR higher than what is currently allocated to the task of removal (the term the law uses for the various mechanisms, including deportation, to order individuals out of the U.S. voluntarily or involuntarily).

  • March 2, 2015 at 11:31am

    Well, they probably are afraid to repeal Obamacare, since if they DO repeal it, they have to come up with their own replacement that’s at least as good (there was a REASON Obamacare happened, and from the government’s perspective, it was primarily the insanely high–as compared to almost all, if not all, other countries–cost of healthcare in the

  • March 2, 2015 at 11:18am

    LOL–because Peter King is such a MODERATE. XD

  • [-1] February 28, 2015 at 3:02am

    Oh WHATEVER–they let those piece of **** pro-birthers riot outside of abortion clinics, and THEY’RE not arrested disturbing the peace. Next to that, I’d call this crazy old theist’s behavior rather innocuous.

    Responses (1) +
  • [2] February 28, 2015 at 2:46am

    Is that what “Islamist” is supposed to mean? I just thought it was a synonym for Muslim.

  • [-3] February 28, 2015 at 2:38am

    If conservatives don’t have an adequate substitute for Obamacare, and its repeal turns out to be a tremendous disaster, your legal arguments aren’t going to protect conservatives from the incredible political backlash. The only way you could possibly make a greater political blunder is by either (a) doing effectively the same thing on immigration–repealing what Obama is trying to do, while not presenting any solution of your own; or (b) getting Roe v. Wade overturned either literally or effectively (such as by erecting enough barriers, as conservatives are trying to do now, to make it cost-prohibitive). And currently conservatives are trying to do BOTH those things. Now granted, your base will be enthused by these things, and you might benefit in the short-term, particularly from increased turn-out of your base, but you’re taking a HUGE gamble on the votes you ACTUALLY need–those people who AREN’T already virtually guaranteed to vote conservative and to turn out to vote. People who might have otherwise voted for you won’t, and even worse those who might not have turned out to vote for the Democrats will turn out to vote against the conservatives. Worst of all, particularly among young women flirting with conservatism if your actually successful in reminding us what a pre-Roe America looked like, you might turn votes that would have likely been cast and been cast FOR you, to votes that will be GUARANTEED to be cast and cast AGAINST you.

    Be careful what you wish for.

    In reply to the contribution Current Obamacare Case Is Not the Last

    Responses (2) +
  • [-2] February 28, 2015 at 2:11am

    “I propose that conservatives use the positive and truthful message on immigration which is: “Legal Immigrants are the Real Americans-in-Waiting!””
    But there’s the incongruity of you whole position–it’s predicated on the assumption that the laws that determine who is and is not a “legal” immigrant have some reasonable basis and are the way they SHOULD be. But the whole REASON we’re even being forced to have this discussion is because of an irrational immigration system that has simultaneously purported to deny immigration, yet failed to actually prevent it. It is those very laws that have created the crisis. So EITHER, we can recognize that those laws are not rational, and change them, and in effect retroactively grant people the status which they ought to have received in the first place–LPR status or citizenship for both those who are trying to work their way through the immigration system as is with varying degrees of success as well as those who didn’t, in recognition of the fact that NEITHER of them should have arbitrarily been forced into EITHER unenviable position–OR we can appropriate ten times or more the resources we currently do to handle the immigration process (hopefully bringing down the time, although without changing the arbitrary visa quotas, much of the backlog will remain), border enforcement, and deportations. But nothing short of one of those two will change the conditions that have MADE a population of a dozen million or so “illegal” immigrants.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] February 28, 2015 at 1:58am

    “While the progressive viewpoint encompasses a number of issues that they deem need resolving through their strategies, one such issue that progressives have placed at the forefront and feel should be eradicated is their belief that Americans fear immigrants.”
    Well riddle me this–if sufficient large contingent of CERTAIN Americans DON’T fear immigrants, then why have our immigration laws only gotten more and more restrictive and complicated over the years, until the point where it can take a decade or more for some immigrants (usually those who are the most likely to immigrate in the first place, Mexicans being perhaps the best example of this) to LAWFULLY immigrate? That doesn’t sound like the policy of a “nation of immigrants,” that purports to have “no problem” with immigrants who have shown an absolute willingness to immigrate “the lawful way.” Remember, that the “illegality” of an immigrant is a product of artificial CHOICE–the CHOICE to have laws that make the immigrants’ migration unlawful. So your specious distinction between opposition to ILLEGAL immigration and immigration writ large is fooling no one (except perhaps yourselves), when you see EXACTLY how the selfsame people react to ANY proposal to make those laws less restrictive and more reasonable in what they’re asking of prospective immigrants.

  • [-2] February 28, 2015 at 1:46am

    You can migrate to Mexico, and their immigration laws are probably far less byzantine than ours (which is not particularly hard).

    But even if they weren’t, that doesn’t make them right, and they’re not America–we don’t make Mexico’s laws, we make America’s. So until we’re finally ready to retire this failed idea of nationalism, each nation-state will be limited to improving its own laws, not those of other nation-states.

    Responses (1) +
  • [-2] February 28, 2015 at 1:42am

    “The Obama administration unveiled a new name recently for those illegally in this country: “Americans-in-Waiting.””
    Mmm, I love it.

    Responses (1) +
  • [14] February 28, 2015 at 1:37am

    The main problem with your whole assumption about the public, is that you rely on statistics which aggregate the entire public. And so it shows the high water mark of opposition to gay marriage. But if you actually did into those statistics, what you see is a huge generational divide between attitudes on gay marriage. And almost ALL of the support for your position comes from those over 30. The older one is, the more likely they are to support your position, whereas the younger, the more likely the opposite. So unless you win over massive numbers of the YOUTH to your position, it’s NEVER going to get any better for your position than it is now. Rather, what you’ll see is your position increasingly losing ground, and becoming more and more the minority opinion, as those who agree with you die, and those who don’t agree with you become politically dominant, start families, and pass on their beliefs and values to their children.

  • [1] February 28, 2015 at 12:59am

    LOL–you little armchair fascists are so CUTE, thinking you would get your little pansy asses hacked to death with machetes and .50 cals.

    Also, if the “Libs are in complete control” wouldn’t that mean they would have all the advanced weaponry of the U.S. at their disposal? You’re gonna have a successful little Nazi uprising a handful of fellow fascists with small arms, while “the Libs” are dropping bombs from a dozen stealth bombers, and lobbing artillery rounds from guns miles away, and rolling over you with Abrams?

  • [2] February 28, 2015 at 12:46am

    How’d they do this with the 52 or so Republicans who defected on the 3-week (or whatever it was) bill? What so they’re fine with a one week bill without an immigration rider but not a three week one? Is there something that’s supposed to happen between one week and three weeks from now that I’m not aware of?

  • [-3] February 27, 2015 at 1:09pm

    “The candy aszz no info libs might even confuse him with that singer and vote for him just because of name recognition…”
    MMM, doubt that–but by all means keep picking your candidates with that reasoning. XD

    American elections might not mean much at the federal level, but at least they’re entertaining!

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love