Sola_Fide
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 20, 2010
- Messages
- 31,482
Sanders' support comes from white college students.
That can't be. They are all Mexicans. White Europeans can't be Marxists.
Sanders' support comes from white college students.
As libertarians, we should of course celebrate the demise of the welfare state. But to expect a sudden devotion to laissez faire to be the likely outcome of a collapse in the welfare state is to indulge in naïveté of an especially preposterous kind.
Back to the original article:
Always a concern. What happens when the state collapses? What has happened in Syria is one possible outcome. How likely would that be here? Considering the Balkanization and group identity politics that is already occurring today, it's easy to see a Syria like outcome if the state collapses completely.
They do not increase the power base, they vote overwhelming for the same Marxist views and candidates as they did back home.
Of course they do, because nativist fools drive them into the arms of the party that offers at least limited immigration. That was my point! Culture warrior idiocy drives what could be a source of natural allies into the enemy camp.
That is hard proof, they do not want to be free, only "free stuff".
That isn't proof they don't want to be free, it is proof that your nativist ideology is alienating a power base it should be cultivating. Of course they vote Democrat when the other party, the Republican Party, is loudly proclaiming how it wants to treat them like animals and lock them in rape cages before it takes all their property form them and throws them out of the country. They'd be idiots not to vote for self-preservation at that point.
Yeah mass immigration did destroy Rome, your lies and revisionism does not change that fact.
You say "revisionist" as if it is a bad word- it isn't. Revisionist history is history that corrects the way history was mis-told in the past. For example, revisionist history rightly points out that Lincoln didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery. Austrian Economics is revisionist economics that correctly explains the failures of Keynesianism and socialism.
Further, just labeling the reality that nativism and closed borders destroyed doesn't actually refute the point, it just demonstrates your grasp on history is simplistic and flawed.
No the source of cheap labor and voter importation caused great strife on the East Coast.
No it very much an arrangement, look at California, do you want demographics that insure only hard left candidates win elections?
Hard left candidates win in California among minorities for the same reason Democrats win among them abroad, because Republican closed borders nativists have alienated minorities through threats of violence, theft, and the destruction of their families.
That can't be. They are all Mexicans. White Europeans can't be Marxists.
When it comes to the size of government, Hispanics are more likely than the general public to say they would rather have a bigger government which provides more services than a smaller government which provides fewer services.
Some 75% of Hispanics hold this view; just 19% say they prefer a smaller government.
![]()
That can't be. They are all Mexicans. White Europeans can't be Marxists.
Well, according to American Spartan it's just the Anglo-Saxons who can't be Marxists. So all the white college students who #feeltheBern must be Irish.
Obviously, the solution is to be more like the English so we can elect people like Jeremy Corbin!
Answers in bold.
That isn't proof they don't want to be free, it is proof that your nativist ideology is alienating a power base it should be cultivating. Of course they vote Democrat when the other party, the Republican Party, is loudly proclaiming how it wants to treat them like animals and lock them in rape cages before it takes all their property form them and throws them out of the country. They'd be idiots not to vote for self-preservation at that point.
You say "revisionist" as if it is a bad word- it isn't. Revisionist history is history that corrects the way history was mis-told in the past. For example, revisionist history rightly points out that Lincoln didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery. Austrian Economics is revisionist economics that correctly explains the failures of Keynesianism and socialism.
Further, just labeling the reality that nativism and closed borders destroyed doesn't actually refute the point, it just demonstrates your grasp on history is simplistic and flawed.
'Hard left candidates win in California among minorities for the same reason Democrats win among them abroad, because Republican closed borders nativists have alienated minorities through threats of violence, theft, and the destruction of their families.
Back to the original article:
Always a concern. What happens when the state collapses? What has happened in Syria is one possible outcome. How likely would that be here? Considering the Balkanization and group identity politics that is already occurring today, it's easy to see a Syria like outcome if the state collapses completely.
It is YOU who ignore data and call names.
There is NO left or right- it is a parody to suck you into The Machine and make you think that you have a choice. You do not.
The right/left just spout correct mantra to pull the American suckers into their web but whoever is in power does exactly what the previous powers did.
Second verse, same as the first.
How is a country "private" property? Wouldn't a nation be better compared to a thoroughfare?
Then I can assure you they were not supporters then, just people following a fad.Bernie has supposedly gained many former Ron Paul supporters. So not is he only creating cultural marxists voters, he is also lessening cultural traditionalist voters. Lets break out the logic and figure out how we justify deporting him.
It does not belong to the world that is for damn sure.
Does property belong to people, or government?
Where did I say that?
Not the question, do the people of the world own the United States? Yes or No?
Do we have the right to keep them out?
That's not the question you want, because that question exposes you as a statist. No matter how much you talk about liberty, you don't believe in private property.
Who is "we"? The government?
U R fugging hilarious. Get a job. You've got way too much time on your hands.
Of course they do, because nativist fools drive them into the arms of the party that offers at least limited immigration. That was my point! Culture warrior idiocy drives what could be a source of natural allies into the enemy camp.
Quote it in segments. No, its because they still have the same Marxist/big government views/politics. They are not going to vote for us. We offer limited immigration that does not harm America as it is limited to skilled labor and people of means.
No, allowing them in drives them to the enemy camp, time to cut off the supply of voters.
How can you claim to value freedom when you support the same marxist ideals that ruined your home nation here?
So enforcing the law, protecting our borders and advancing our self interests is some how "treating people like animals and locking them in "rape cages"? Wow.
So its ok vote them to vote for their self preservation but we have some obligation to allow us to be replaced inside of our own nation?
No mass immigration did destroy Rome and your lying does not change this fact.
[/B]http://www.thefreelibrary.com/How+i...rd+historian+Peter+Heather+has...-a0141907543
No, you just refuse any study at human nature, culture and the effects of migration on them.
'
No, that is pure crap, they win because they promise them anything they want and they are dumb or desperate enough to believe them, or a life long love affair with large government ideology.
And when all else fails just import more voters as to insure they can water down and dilute American voters, great system is it not! What is even better is people like you who support it and can not see you are being used.
" Most of the illegals we have are no longer coming from Mexico." AmericanSpartan November 13, 2015
No, allowing them in drives them to the enemy camp, time to cut off the supply of voters.