Roy Moore


#121

Not if the black man were a Republican. That’s not racism.


#122

I can’t find it on the internet but I’ve seen a video of LBJ in some documentary where he is on the phone with a southern senator, I think it was Strom Thurmond, reminding him that the “nigger bill” is coming up for a vote. As I recall, Thurmond did not vote for the bill. Apparently LBJ didn’t have enough IOUs to get this vote.


#123

There were a lot of sex related charges against Herman Cain that drove him out of the race. Don’t know if they were true. Don’t remember any white racist republicans throwing him under the bus.


#124

I read your “article” linked. If Foreign Policy is a “Bush Era Neo-Con Rag” then I’m a black airline pilot. It may be “Bush Era” but it’s certainly not even CLOSE to being “conservative” in content OR tone…“neo” or otherwise. I still don’t get this “Neo-Con” stuff, BTW. One is either conservative or not.


#125

Neo distinguishes from Paleo… Ron Paul is a Paleo-Conservative, Bush was a Neo-Conservative… Trump is a Nationalist with paleo-conservative traits.


#126

Ted Cruz wrote for FP mag https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/11/25/a-dangerous-wrongheaded-deal/ is Ted Cruz liberal? I think you are distorted since the party went nationalist with Brietbart pulling Fox and various others into a populist spiral.


#127

Mushroom, I see that you completely IGNORED Pappadave’s post #120 ,how come?


#128

The (repurposed) philosophy of Leo Strauss, and exalting interventionist foriegn policy as advocated for in The End of History and the Last Man by Francis Fukuyama.

Basically, make conservatives compatible with Wilsonian Idealism:

Those like RET fell for it hook, line and sinker.

This is what happens when you don’t scrutinize where your ideas come from.


#129

That distinction has the problem that paleo’s include Pat Buchanan, and are quite hostile to immigration.

God knows why… growing the police state to obstruct socio-economic cycles, does not sound like “I love liberty”, at all.


#130

AS. I’ll never understand why you’re so eager to import millions of unskilled, poor, third-world “immigrants” into the U.S. I understand that you believe that they are “good for the country,” but I need to you explain cogently why you think that. They are burdens on us economically and politically and those burdens continued into the 3rd generation very often. You seem to want to turn the nation blue–which unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration will insure.


#131

Dave, countries more automated than us have to import low skilled labor to meet their labor demands.

Japan does it, JAPAN, the country that HATES immigrants, is right now tricking low-skilled people to come in and work on their farms, and shell their crabs.

Because no one else is available to do those jobs. No one else cares.

3rd generation, latinos are earning around $42,000 a year, they’re middle class, they’re supporting themselves. This is why economists do not object to them.

The 1st generation might take more in benefits, but the 2nd and 3rd are always a net surplus.

And that’s just Government, to the economy, they are always a contributor, even the 1st generation.

There has been no exceptions to this trend. Italians were like this, the Polish were like this, African immigrants today are like this, and Latinos are like this.

No exceptions Dave. Every group of immigrants, every immigration wave, has been like this.


#132

So the Democrats can build an insurmountable majority and never have to worry about losing enough seats to lose control; California is the model they envision for the entire country and open border policies with Cadillac Welfare is how you get there fast.


#133

Shut up RET, that isn’t what I want, and you know it.

You pretend not to, because that makes it easier for you to demonize.

In America, we’ve had meaningful reform of welfare in more recent history than we’ve had meaningful reform of immigration.

Do not tell me it’s impossible to do the former. You would be wrong or a liar.

And hell, even without immigrants, we need to do it anyway. Reform of welfare is a must; nothing the Democrats can do or say, or promise will change that.

Their policies are hitting a hard wall. Sequestration will force their hands the same way it did for the Greeks and would-be socialists in Spain and France.

The only thing that’s kept their plans afloat all this time is low interest rates, and the USD being a reserve currency.

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE, both of these things are coming to an end. The latter is ending permanently.


#134

I …thought this was the Roy Moore thread…? confused


#135

It was but every thread must become an open borders thread because the Left have no other plausible plan to regain power.


#136

Not buying it RET, get your head out of your own rear.

You hold labor in isolation, you’ve lied about what other conservatives have stated on immigration, giving me BS that “Oh, you don’t understand what he’s saying

And you pretend that any injustice you’ve suffered, justifies punishing farmers & workers in Iowa, who have done nothing to you.

You have no answers for any of this, because you hate answering the hard knocks of reality.

And you blame the messenger. That’s all you’re doing, blame the messenger, because you don’t want a debate, you just want ******* pontificate, and ignore anything else.

You’re lazy RET, just goddamn Lazy.


#137

Just so folks know, Alaska Slim’s last post hasn’t gone unoticed. In the meantime, AS, if you get so riled up that you can’t refrain from posting insults, feeling free to accuse of lying, and using “goddamn” on a forum which is home to conservatives who in many cases are Christian, then you need to walk away from the argument. I’m speaking as a moderator right now.


#138

After he accused me of being dishonest

For 3 years he’s harassed me over what went down in this thread.

And as to my “accusation” that he lied:

You have absolutely no idea what they are talking about and you cannot grasp the concept of historical context so even your hearsay is a fabrication of your own imagination.” - RET

Read this article FC, and tell me what Judge Napolitano’s stance is on the right to immigrate. You should be able to tell just by the title, and recognize that everything RET said here, was dishonest.

Why is this important? Because he keeps using this as pretext to accuse me of being a “secret” liberal, when other conservatives take my position, who he, right here, blatantly ignored the existence of. He doesn’t want to acknowledge that dissent exists, he just wants to attack me personally over and over again, because that’s easier than acknowledging that other originalists on the Constitution don’t agree with him.

3 years he’s harassed me. 3 years, as far as I can tell, you’ve stated nothing to him about it. You don’t stop him. I’m at this point because of that.


#139

I don’t think RET has ever denied that some conservative people, support liberal immigration policies.


#140

He Denied it for Judge Napolitano, insisting I had “no idea” what he, as a Textualist on the Constitution, was talking about.

Well here he is. What’s his position, CWolf? Did I fail to understand it?