Romney 2012: The Last Great White Campaign

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Umm you have to admit:
1) educating, providing hospital care, policing, providing "safety net" benefits, etc to a horde of illegal immigrants has a cost associated with it.   
2) If the federal government did it's job of protecting Arizona from all these problems and costs(per their duty outlined in the constitution, law, etc), then their would be no basis for the law. 
3) given 1&2 are true, than your assertion that the law is race based doesn't hold any weight in the face of the legitimate real reasons.   

Considering that the main reasons we've restricted legal immigration well below the levels they would otherwise be is racism and/or chauvinism, then yes, the law is race based.  The idea that the main reason illegal immigrants come here to live off the government safety net is hokum.  They come here for jobs, which is why illegal immigration has plummeted the past few years.

The easiest solution to the illegal immigration problem is some combination of more aggressively going after those who would employ them and/or increasing the levels of legal immigration.  I.e., decreasing the demand for immigrant labor or increasing the supply.  All laws like SB 1070 are likely to achieve in the long run is adding to our law enforcement budgets, much as our futile war on drugs has.

[AmericanNation]

Umm you have to admit:
1) educating, providing hospital care, policing, providing "safety net" benefits, etc to a horde of illegal immigrants has a cost associated with it.   
2) If the federal government did it's job of protecting Arizona from all these problems and costs(per their duty outlined in the constitution, law, etc), then their would be no basis for the law. 
3) given 1&2 are true, than your assertion that the law is race based doesn't hold any weight in the face of the legitimate real reasons.   

Considering that the main reasons we've restricted legal immigration well below the levels they would otherwise be is racism and/or chauvinism, then yes, the law is race based.  The idea that the main reason illegal immigrants come here to live off the government safety net is hokum.  They come here for jobs, which is why illegal immigration has plummeted the past few years.

The easiest solution to the illegal immigration problem is some combination of more aggressively going after those who would employ them and/or increasing the levels of legal immigration.  I.e., decreasing the demand for immigrant labor or increasing the supply.  All laws like SB 1070 are likely to achieve in the long run is adding to our law enforcement budgets, much as our futile war on drugs has.

You're calling Ted Kennedy a racist?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Umm you have to admit:
1) educating, providing hospital care, policing, providing "safety net" benefits, etc to a horde of illegal immigrants has a cost associated with it.   
2) If the federal government did it's job of protecting Arizona from all these problems and costs(per their duty outlined in the constitution, law, etc), then their would be no basis for the law. 
3) given 1&2 are true, than your assertion that the law is race based doesn't hold any weight in the face of the legitimate real reasons.   

Considering that the main reasons we've restricted legal immigration well below the levels they would otherwise be is racism and/or chauvinism, then yes, the law is race based.  The idea that the main reason illegal immigrants come here to live off the government safety net is hokum.  They come here for jobs, which is why illegal immigration has plummeted the past few years.

The easiest solution to the illegal immigration problem is some combination of more aggressively going after those who would employ them and/or increasing the levels of legal immigration.  I.e., decreasing the demand for immigrant labor or increasing the supply.  All laws like SB 1070 are likely to achieve in the long run is adding to our law enforcement budgets, much as our futile war on drugs has.

You're calling Ted Kennedy a racist?

Chauvinist in his case.  Besides the racist arguments for restricting immigration are the chauvinist ones of deliberately trying to keep the national labor supply constricted so as to raise wages.  But that only works well if you have tariffs high enough to keep out goods from lower wage countries with a surplus of labor.

[後援会]

Umm you have to admit:
1) educating, providing hospital care, policing, providing "safety net" benefits, etc to a horde of illegal immigrants has a cost associated with it.   
2) If the federal government did it's job of protecting Arizona from all these problems and costs(per their duty outlined in the constitution, law, etc), then their would be no basis for the law. 
3) given 1&2 are true, than your assertion that the law is race based doesn't hold any weight in the face of the legitimate real reasons.   

Considering that the main reasons we've restricted legal immigration well below the levels they would otherwise be is racism and/or chauvinism, then yes, the law is race based.  The idea that the main reason illegal immigrants come here to live off the government safety net is hokum.  They come here for jobs, which is why illegal immigration has plummeted the past few years.

The easiest solution to the illegal immigration problem is some combination of more aggressively going after those who would employ them and/or increasing the levels of legal immigration.  I.e., decreasing the demand for immigrant labor or increasing the supply.  All laws like SB 1070 are likely to achieve in the long run is adding to our law enforcement budgets, much as our futile war on drugs has.

You're calling Ted Kennedy a racist?

Chauvinist in his case.  Besides the racist arguments for restricting immigration are the chauvinist ones of deliberately trying to keep the national labor supply constricted so as to raise wages.  But that only works well if you have tariffs high enough to keep out goods from lower wage countries with a surplus of labor.

I mean, I think Ted Kennedy is a chauvinist, racist, murdering scumbag who would be burning in hell if I were Christian.

[AmericanNation]

Umm you have to admit:
1) educating, providing hospital care, policing, providing "safety net" benefits, etc to a horde of illegal immigrants has a cost associated with it.   
2) If the federal government did it's job of protecting Arizona from all these problems and costs(per their duty outlined in the constitution, law, etc), then their would be no basis for the law. 
3) given 1&2 are true, than your assertion that the law is race based doesn't hold any weight in the face of the legitimate real reasons.   

Considering that the main reasons we've restricted legal immigration well below the levels they would otherwise be is racism and/or chauvinism, then yes, the law is race based.  The idea that the main reason illegal immigrants come here to live off the government safety net is hokum.  They come here for jobs, which is why illegal immigration has plummeted the past few years.

The easiest solution to the illegal immigration problem is some combination of more aggressively going after those who would employ them and/or increasing the levels of legal immigration.  I.e., decreasing the demand for immigrant labor or increasing the supply.  All laws like SB 1070 are likely to achieve in the long run is adding to our law enforcement budgets, much as our futile war on drugs has.

You're calling Ted Kennedy a racist?

Chauvinist in his case.  Besides the racist arguments for restricting immigration are the chauvinist ones of deliberately trying to keep the national labor supply constricted so as to raise wages.  But that only works well if you have tariffs high enough to keep out goods from lower wage countries with a surplus of labor.

I think most people are screwed up on immigration, but most republicans(or at least a plurality) would be in favor of reforming the messed up Kennedy immigration laws so as to expand the amount of legal immigration.  Democrats always oppose that in favor of some amnesty program proposal. 

Generally:
Republicans want immigrants to work and earn citizenship.
Democrats want illegal immigrants to be citizens and not work. 

I can make an argument for the republican's desire, but I can't justify the democrat's.       

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Generally:
Republicans want immigrants to work and earn citizenship.
Democrats want illegal immigrants to be citizens and not work. 

I can make an argument for the republican's desire, but I can't justify the democrat's.       

Because your "Democratic" desire is a strawman.

The idea that the reason illegal immigrants want to come here is to live high off the hog off of our safety net programs is pure hogwash as the last few years should have made abundantly clear.  They come here to find jobs.

[AmericanNation]

Generally:
Republicans want immigrants to work and earn citizenship.
Democrats want illegal immigrants to be citizens and not work. 

I can make an argument for the republican's desire, but I can't justify the democrat's.       

Because your "Democratic" desire is a strawman.

The idea that the reason illegal immigrants want to come here is to live high off the hog off of our safety net programs is pure hogwash as the last few years should have made abundantly clear.  They come here to find jobs.

I never said they wanted to.  The list of expenses is real.  That doesn't have anything to do with the general desires of the democrats anyway.  I'm afraid that's a false strawman call. 

[後援会]

Generally:
Republicans want immigrants to work and earn citizenship.
Democrats want illegal immigrants to be citizens and not work. 

I can make an argument for the republican's desire, but I can't justify the democrat's.       

Because your "Democratic" desire is a strawman.

The idea that the reason illegal immigrants want to come here is to live high off the hog off of our safety net programs is pure hogwash as the last few years should have made abundantly clear.  They come here to find jobs.

True, immigrants come for work. It's why illegal immigrants aren't coming to Obama's America. Welfare is not a huge aspect of their decision. Or even a major aspect.

But that doesn't detract from the fact that Democrats shoot down things like guest-worker programs and skilled-worker legal immigration. Because they want illegal immigrants to become citizens and then start voting Democrat. And immigrants don't come to enjoy welfare programs, but once they're here, they'll be enjoying social services (which don't get me wrong, I believe they deserve to have, even if they're illegal), and if they become citizens, more receptive towards voting for Democrats, especially if they have no way to economically advance themselves and their families, as is unfortunately often the case.

[krazen1211]

Taxes are at their lowest since the 1950s.

Obama isn't the reason revenue is so low. We are recovering from a financial crisis, so revenue is obviously down. But yes, he has given 17 tax cuts in the past 4 years. I don't think you can attack him for such low revenue when that is the centerpiece of the GOP Recovery Plan.

Ryan's plan is actually 18% of GDP in revenues, which is far higher than Obama has gathered in his first term.

[後援会]

Taxes are at their lowest since the 1950s.

Obama isn't the reason revenue is so low. We are recovering from a financial crisis, so revenue is obviously down. But yes, he has given 17 tax cuts in the past 4 years. I don't think you can attack him for such low revenue when that is the centerpiece of the GOP Recovery Plan.

So under Obama get the worst of both tax worlds huh? High marginal tax rates (a disincentive to earn) but low revenues (because of random tax credit give-aways).

It's quite easy for me to blame Obama. Companies, especially small businesses, are actually sitting on a great deal of money. When pressed as to why they're not spending it, over half blame "regulatory uncertainty".

Maybe if Obama hadn't squandered eight years of accumulated political capital on shoving through Obamacare and perhaps maybe spent it on tax reform, or regulatory reform, or entitlement reform, or hell, even a real stimulus, we might much better off. And please don't bring up "Republican obstructionism", as if the opposition party can do anything when you have 60 Senate seats and 250+ House seats.

[J. J.]

This might be the first election which doesn't have a racist element.  If Obama loses, it won't be because he's black.  If Romney wins, it won't be because he's white.

[Link]

This might be the first election which doesn't have a racist element.  If Obama loses, it won't be because he's black.  If Romney wins, it won't be because he's white.

So just because he loses for other reasons means there is no way there is any racial element?  Says who?  What is with the unsubstantiated pronouncements?

This might be the first election which doesn't have a racist element.

Did you see this...

RNC Attendees Throw Nuts at Black Camerawoman, "This is how we feed animals"

[J. J.]

This might be the first election which doesn't have a racist element.  If Obama loses, it won't be because he's black.  If Romney wins, it won't be because he's white.

So just because he loses for other reasons means there is no way there is any racial element?  Says who?  What is with the unsubstantiated pronouncements?

The country suddenly became racist in four years?  The same group that selected him, rejected him, if he is rejected.  Obama wins or loses re-election based on his job performance.

This might be the first election which doesn't have a racist element.

Did you see this...

The plant, oh sure.

Gee, I wonder if anyone suggested she was in the wild by reptiles. 

[opebo]

The country suddenly became racist in four years?  The same group that selected him, rejected him, if he is rejected.  Obama wins or loses re-election based on his job performance.

No, the country was just as racist in 2008, they were just desperate.  It was an unusual moment.  Now they're bitter and want scapegoats.

[Phony Moderate]

The country suddenly became racist in four years?  The same group that selected him, rejected him, if he is rejected.  Obama wins or loses re-election based on his job performance.

No, the country was just as racist in 2008, they were just desperate.  It was an unusual moment.  Now they're bitter and want scapegoats.

Yeah, the racism in 2008 was of a more subtle form. Now it's the Stormfront form - blatant.

[J. J.]

The country suddenly became racist in four years?  The same group that selected him, rejected him, if he is rejected.  Obama wins or loses re-election based on his job performance.

No, the country was just as racist in 2008, they were just desperate.  It was an unusual moment.  Now they're bitter and want scapegoats.

The problem, job performance is not that good (understatement), and expectations were high.   People might have been desperate in 2008, but they are a lot more desperate in 2012.

[J. J.]

The country suddenly became racist in four years?  The same group that selected him, rejected him, if he is rejected.  Obama wins or loses re-election based on his job performance.

No, the country was just as racist in 2008, they were just desperate.  It was an unusual moment.  Now they're bitter and want scapegoats.

Yeah, the racism in 2008 was of a more subtle form. Now it's the Stormfront form - blatant.

No, Stormfront was there in 2008.  Now, there is a record.  It might be racist to ignore that record.

[J. J.]

The country suddenly became racist in four years?  The same group that selected him, rejected him, if he is rejected.  Obama wins or loses re-election based on his job performance.

No, the country was just as racist in 2008, they were just desperate.  It was an unusual moment.  Now they're bitter and want scapegoats.

Yeah, the racism in 2008 was of a more subtle form. Now it's the Stormfront form - blatant.

Stormfront has been around since the 1990's.  There is a record of Obama's presidency.  It might be racist to ignore that record.

[opebo]

The problem, job performance is not that good (understatement), and expectations were high.   People might have been desperate in 2008, but they are a lot more desperate in 2012.

It is absurd to expect a president to change one's class condition.  Global capitalism clearly requires that nearly all American voters be impoverished, and neither candidate is opposing capitalism.

[The Ex-Factor]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/as-republican-convention-emphasizes-diversity-racial-incidents-intrude/2012/08/29/b9023a52-f1ec-11e1-892d-bc92fee603a7_print.html

[J. J.]

The problem, job performance is not that good (understatement), and expectations were high.   People might have been desperate in 2008, but they are a lot more desperate in 2012.

It is absurd to expect a president to change one's class condition.  Global capitalism clearly requires that nearly all American voters be impoverished, and neither candidate is opposing capitalism.

I agree with the first line.  Obama shouldn't have promised it, just because he had achieved elite status on a personal level.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Maybe we would have gotten more done if the GOP were willing to work with us at all. Their stated goal was to block as much as possible to stagnate Obama and make him easier to beat.

[後援会]

Maybe we would have gotten more done if the GOP were willing to work with us at all. Their stated goal was to block as much as possible to stagnate Obama and make him easier to beat.

Because you can totally filibuster with 40 Senators. Man, damn those Republicans, for uh...making funny faces and writing angry letters while our party passed the bills we wanted to pass!

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Maybe we would have gotten more done if the GOP were willing to work with us at all. Their stated goal was to block as much as possible to stagnate Obama and make him easier to beat.

Because you can totally filibuster with 40 Senators. Man, damn those Republicans, for uh...making funny faces and writing angry letters while our party passed the bills we wanted to pass!

We only had the full 60 for a few months (between Al Franken's seating and Scott Brown winning in MA), and Lieberman joined the 40 on health care reform. The stimulus, which by all means should have been bigger, was probably about as big as it could have been.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

[後援会]

We only had the full 60 for a few months (between Al Franken's seating and Scott Brown winning in MA), and Lieberman joined the 40 on health care reform. The stimulus, which by all means should have been bigger, was probably about as big as it could have been.

“The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”

And you spend those months on...something not very good.

Not to mention, Snowe, Collins, and Brown were clearly willing to go along with things. As shown by the stimulus and Dodd-Frank.

The whole obstructionism doesn't work. Look how much FDR accomplished in 100 days. Compare that to Obama. It's indefensible.