Ann Coulter's response to invasion of illegal immigrants
Posted by Non_mooching_artist 10 years, 11 months ago to Video
Don't mince words, Ann! That's just they way I like it.
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Overall GDP was increasing and gov't spending as a % of GDP was decreasing => thus the overall prosperity of the nation was increasing not as a function of gov't spending.
Gov % gdp only shows 2009-2012 and tells me nothing about the topic I was discussing.
If you want to argue against my comment then address debt creation as it is central to the recent economic "prosperity" as I made clear in 2 previous postings above.
If you want to make a point about govt spending vs gdp then lets start a new topic and discuss it there because it is not relevant to my comments here; that is another topic.
It's also the regulation, which creates a black market. Minimum wage, housing rules, OSHA, tax loopholes, a thousand and one ways that people can make a profit off of illegitimate labor... and as for the labor, even under minimum wage, even below what we consider poverty conditions, living here was *still* better than where they came from.
So, welfare state, regulation creating market opportunities, prosperity difference. A three-legged stool.
No call for East Germany to be "given back"?
The Soviets repeatedly rejected plans to re-integrate the Germany halves.
In point of fact, if it weren't for people who refuse to hate evil (hi there), there was no need for Germany to be divided. But the Soviet backwoods trash had to have their egos assuaged, just like the Afghan trash, and Iraqi trash.
I remember my father telling me about having to wait 3 weeks for the Soviets to take Berlin, and then the 3 days he spent loading ammunition trucks in preparation for going to war with the Soviets over 3 American prisoners they wouldn't turn over to us.
Back then, we still had a tiny sliver of nationalism left.
If it weren't for the scumbag anti-American politicians, I can't even call them "Democrats", because that internationalist suckbutt Eisenhower was as much behind appeasing our enemies as anyone, Germany wouldn't have been divided.
You'll note that in 1961... Japan was regaining prosperity and no longer occupied by the evil United States, the sole power who occupied Japan.
So don't give me this crap about how the Berlin wall wasn't an attempt to keep the victims of communist aggression from escaping.
We treated the Soviets like a civilized nation when in fact it was a 3rd world craphole. The result was millions dead, a massive waste of money on nuclear armaments, and a communist victory by way of the White House, half of SCOTUS and most of Congress.
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_2...
The decline from 1990 through 2000 was largely due to the BB's spending and increasing the GDP.
I don't concede 2004 was prosperity.
Debt creation give illusion of prosperity but is not prosperity
We define prosperity differently and I doubt we will agree with further discussion.
This has long been an issue, and it is draining to muster a response drenched in logic, when all it will ultimately do is sink like a stone into the murky swamp waters of the collectivist cesspool.
Gang or no gang, it is rational, ethical and proper to control the entry of each and every immigrant to this country in context of: criminality, terrorism (a different form of criminality,) seditious/revanchist/irredentist ideology (ditto,) also health and self-sufficiency - and eject "any and all" who fail those criteria with extreme prejudice. Prejudice having nothing to do with the trivia of racial derivation, BTW (which latter is another diversion.)
What we are seeing is apparently Obama's stab at accelerating the UN's Agenda 21 plan for global collectivist serfdom within this century - the obliteration of American sovereignty by dilution, via people from adjacent nations who not only have **no** desire to assimilate as Americans but harbor a seething hatred of both America and Americanism. Much like... Mr. Obama.
There is a valid, individualist case for open borders, but "open borders" does not mean indiscriminate acquiescence to invasion. It means letting into the country any individual who is **not**: a criminal, seditious, a terrorist, a revanchist, an irredentist, carrying a deadly communicable disease, a parasite on his way to the nearest welfare office - to build his own life for himself, unmolested by others, and not molesting others - figuratively or literally.
The facepalm-irony of it all is that Mexico could and should be one of the wealthiest nations on Earth, with a real problem of Americans sneaking south across the border in search of a lucrative living. It's sitting atop one of the largest petroleum fields on the planet (albeit of a less-"sweet" grade of crude that requires more refining.) But it's laboring under generations of corruption, a substandard Constitution, decades of neglect by American politicians in fostering improvement in those conditions, and a current American Administration populated by collectivist vandals.
To posit that none of this would be much of a problem if it weren't for the "war on drugs" virtually precludes a response beyond laughter.
.
*snort*
Aside from the pregnant question as to why a goose-stepping collectivist is spending lots of time posting unintentionally-amusing comments on an individualist forum - and aside from the equally-unintended irony in "propaganda" - it might be time for someone to have a trip back to some textbooks for a little study on "collectivism and its variants," vs. individualism.
Every tyranny in history, every despotic state in history, has been collectivist. Period. Full stop. Everyone out of the pool.
You may offer proof to the contrary in a very simple way:
Name one individualist tyranny or individualist despot.
Waiting .....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
There was no stolen territory.
You can't have it both ways, Maph. You can't be opposed to borders and at the same time claim people 'stole' territory.
Try an experiment. put a bucket under the faucet of your sink. Turn the water on about 1/4 way. Now bail the water out with a spoon.
Okay, now turn the water up to 1/2 way. Start bailing with a cup.
Then turn the water on full blast, and keep bailing with the cup.
The bucket will continue to fill.
East and West Germany remained divided in 1961 because the conqueror to whom freedomforall refers, the USSR, wouldn't surrender its conquered territory.
The economy isn't what it was in 2004.
http://www.thefederalistpapers.org/us/yo...
Perhaps we differ in defining prosperity. Debt creation isn't prosperity.
I guess someone "prospered" from all the debt created to pay for the war on false pretenses, and debt created on marginal real estate to hide the economic weakness in productive industry, but it's not what I call prosperity. While the dollar loses its value, the US loses what's left of its honor, and manufacturing disappears? Sounds like prosperity as defined by a politician running for office who doesn't care what happens after election day.
Perhaps we could look at more data and consider when the US economy was last a strong one and not puffed up by government spending, or internet share price insanity, or debt creation unsupported with security or production.
I (HEART) ANN!
Load more comments...