NationStates Jolt Archive

Sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. I think many of the American people feel the same way Fred Thompson does.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU

or listen

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/03/20/harvey320pmcommentary.mp3

"I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?"

Go Fred!

Fred Thompson is my new best friend! :D

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

I can't back this candidate. Too right of center on social issues for me.

Plus he doesn't seem to want to bring in alternatives to buying oil from nations that sponsor terrorism and violate human rights.

Voted YES on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months.
Voted YES on defunding renewable and solar energy.

Yor typical shout "Communist!" at any social measures politician. Trash.

"trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created."

in so far as there is a problem, it is due to the lack of open borders.

"What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?"

that it is exactly like all the other not-quite-so-rich countries on the planet?

Sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. I think many of the American people feel the same way Fred Thompson does.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU

or listen

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/03/20/harvey320pmcommentary.mp3

"I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?"

Go Fred!

QFT. :)

What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?

What does it say about Fred Thompson that he thinks Mexico's economy is somehow reliant on "exporting" illegal immigrants?

I think it says he's a fucking idiot. Also, his little letter was condescending, trite, and simplistic. "LOL U HAVE NATIONALIZED INDUSTRIES." What a little baby.

Figures that some of the frothing border-control ... people... are lapping this shit up like it was mother's milk.

What does it say about Fred Thompson that he thinks Mexico's economy is somehow reliant on "exporting" illegal immigrants?

I think it says he's a fucking idiot. Also, his little letter was condescending, trite, and simplistic. "LOL U HAVE NATIONALIZED INDUSTRIES." What a little baby.

Figures that some of the frothing border-control ... people... are lapping this shit up like it was mother's milk.

Well of course they are. It's Tom Tancredo's message with a hint of gravitas from Thompson's acting ability. Tancredo can barely win re-election in his House district--Thompson actually has a shot at the big ring, if he runs, if only because the Republican field is so weak this time around.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Fred_Thompson.htm

I can't back this candidate. Too right of center on social issues for me.

Plus he doesn't seem to want to bring in alternatives to buying oil from nations that sponsor terrorism and violate human rights.

Also he apparently doesn't believe in civil rights.

Well of course they are. It's Tom Tancredo's message with a hint of gravitas from Thompson's acting ability. Tancredo can barely win re-election in his House district--Thompson actually has a shot at the big ring, if he runs, if only because the Republican field is so weak this time around.

I liked him in Hunt for Red October.

The average Russky, son, don't take a dump without a plan.

imao.us is endorsing Fred Thompson.

"Fred Thompson once glared angrily at Mexico. There was no illegal immigration for a month after."

What does it say about Fred Thompson that he thinks Mexico's economy is somehow reliant on "exporting" illegal immigrants?

reliant is a bit strong in the case of mexico, but remittances are a significant source of foreign currency for them. comes in just behind oil and the maquiladoras, iirc.

in so far as there is a problem, it is due to the lack of open borders.

That's a bunch of http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/kngt.gif and you know it.

that it is exactly like all the other not-quite-so-rich countries on the planet?

No, like a country that is so full of graft and corruption and refuses to develop industries and jobs for their people so the people suffer. :(

What does it say about Fred Thompson that he thinks Mexico's economy is somehow reliant on "exporting" illegal immigrants?


Well, considering the fact that Mexico's economy relies very heavily on $$$ sent back home by illegal immigrants...

No, like a country that is so full of graft and corruption and refuses to develop industries and jobs for their people so the people suffer. :(

"refuses"....Hmmmm. Nothing to do with having free trade with the US at all then....

Well, considering the fact that Mexico's economy relies very heavily on $$$ sent back home by illegal immigrants...

2.5 percent of GDP is "very heavily?"

Let's play some numbers here. Since 2.5 percent of the Mexican GDP is apparently enough for you to say Mexico is "reliant" on it.

The US imports about $1.869 trillion (2006 est) worth of goods from foreign nations. Trade with Mexico represents 11% of that, making 205 billion. That's ten times as much as remmittances.

Therefore, the United States economy relies extremely very heavily on Mexico. You should be kissing their ass, not investing in stupid "HAHA U NATIONALISTS ILLEGALS LOL!" letters by fat useless politicians.

Sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. I think many of the American people feel the same way Fred Thompson does.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU

or listen

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/03/20/harvey320pmcommentary.mp3

"I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?"

Go Fred!

i dont get it.

you want a president who is a noodge? you want a president whose idea of how to deal with illegal immigration is to go to mexico, look its president in the face and state the glaringly obvious?

how does that change anything? id much rather support someone who has a plan for dealing with the problem.

The solution to illegal immigration is so simple, it's child's play. But nobody wants to hear it, especially the businesses that benefit most from cheap disposable silent labor.

That's a bunch of http://www.nearlygood.com/smilies/kngt.gif and you know it.

name me an immigrant/migrant problem that is caused by our borders being open

2.5 percent of GDP is "very heavily?"

Let's play some numbers here. Since 2.5 percent of the Mexican GDP is apparently enough for you to say Mexico is "reliant" on it.

2.5% of GDP doesn't sound like much does it? So, let's see just how much that is; In 2005 that was $16.6 Billion and was up 24% from 2003. Remittances now brings in more money than tourism. So I would say they rely "very heavily" on that money.

The Mexican government needs to work on building their economy and state run businessses is not the way to do that.

I liked him in Hunt for Red October.

The average Russky, son, don't take a dump without a plan.
He's a decent actor. Still wouldn't vote for him on a bet.

2.5% of GDP doesn't sound like much does it? So, let's see just how much that is; In 2005 that was $16.6 Billion and was up 24% from 2003. Remittances now brings in more money than tourism. So I would say they rely "very heavily" on that money.

The Mexican government needs to work on building their economy and state run businessses is not the way to do that.You would still be wrong. 2.5% is a pittance compared to their overall economy.

Question: Why do Conservatives love yelling "stfu" at left-leaning actors whenever they make a political statement, yet they'll give a blow job to any right-leaning actor who decides to run for office?

And I just love the stupid "nationalized industry" comment. Considering most of the Mexicans who migrate to the USA are displaced agricultural workers, I just can't see how that's relevant.

2.5% of GDP doesn't sound like much does it? So, let's see just how much that is; In 2005 that was $16.6 Billion and was up 24% from 2003. Remittances now brings in more money than tourism. So I would say they rely "very heavily" on that money.

Sorry - a rate of increase from a single time frame does not change the FACT that 2.5 percent is NOT a "heavy" part of the Mexican economy. Period.

Now maybe you are saying it WILL become that, based on your 24% increase for one year. But I would rather see some more substantial projections before taking that in any way seriously.

Question: Why do Conservatives love yelling "stfu" at left-leaning actors whenever they make a political statement, yet they'll give a blow job to any right-leaning actor who decides to run for office?

Because there are so few of them. :p

I'd certainly hate to give a blowjob to every left-leaning actor. You'd never close your mouth again! :eek:

I'd like to point out a not oft mentioned element of the southern immigration issue.

Just before our civil war, we mugged Mexico twice for its northern frontier, first during the American supported Texan rebellion and subsequent American annexation, and then through the Mexican-American war. I'm sure we did it for the sake of democracy ;) ;) , but it sure looks a lot more like imperialistic greed to me. So we now have California, Texas, and everything in between, not because we got there first, but because we got there with the most guns. Perhaps someone could back me up with historical data, but I think it's safe to assume that Mexicans were moving north long before we decided that their frontier lands belonged to us.

It's tempting to consider ourselves a nation-state and insist that the burden is on immigrants to assimilate or at the very least integrate humbly into mainstream American culture; (and I would agree that this is a good model when thinking of overseas immigration). However, from a historical perspective, I think it would be more accurate and useful when thinking about Mexican immigration to think of ourselves as a multicultural empire that is responsible to show extra concern for conquered peoples and the nations we separated them from.

It's tempting to consider ourselves a nation-state and insist that the burden is on immigrants to assimilate or at the very least integrate humbly into mainstream American culture; (and I would agree that this is a good model when thinking of overseas immigration). However, from a historical perspective, I think it would be more accurate and useful when thinking about Mexican immigration to think of ourselves as a multicultural empire that is responsible to show extra concern for conquered peoples and the nations we separated them from.
Here's the thing that no one really wants to admit about Mexican immigrants, legal or otherwise.

They do assimilate.

Typically, immigrants take 3 generations to fully assimilate, and Mexicans are no different. The difference is that Mexican immigration has been more or less continuous for the last couple hundred years, and there's no indication that it'll stop anytime soon, so it seems like there's this massive population that refuses to assimilate. That's wrong--there are just new unassimilated people taking the place of the assimilated ones.

He's a decent actor. Still wouldn't vote for him on a bet.

You ave stated you wouldn't vote for any Republican. :( Would you vote for an Independant for President?

You ave stated you wouldn't vote for any Republican. :( Would you vote for an Independant for President?

At this point? I don't see why I would. I don't rule out the possibility of voting for Republicans in the future--for instance, if Charlie Crist continues doing the job he's been doing in Florida, I'd probably vote for him when he runs for re-election. But when it comes to national office, party plays a much larger role, simply because the Executive brings in so much party baggage in terms of appointing judges and the like, that unless the national Republican party undergoes some radical changes, I can't see voting for their candidate in a national election.

Side note: what part of Louisiana are you moving to? I grew up there.

Side note: what part of Louisiana are you moving to? I grew up there.

We are moving to Benton. We spent 15 years at Barksdale AFB on three different tours, our youngest son is stationed there now and will retire from the AF in about four years, and our oldest son lives in Natichotches. It will be like going home again. We already bought the property and will be getting the house about this time next year. Where did you grow up?

We are moving to Benton. We spent 15 years at Barksdale AFB on three different tours, our youngest son is stationed there now and will retire from the AF in about four years, and our oldest son lives in Natichotches. It will be like going home again. We already bought the property and will be getting the house about this time next year. Where did you grow up?

South of there--just across Lake Pontchartrain from New Orleans. I lived in St. Tammany and Tangipahoa parishes for about 24 years until I went to grad school in Arkansas.

Well, considering the fact that Mexico's economy relies very heavily on $$$ sent back home by illegal immigrants...

The vast majority of money sent back is from legal immigrants. There's a lot of beaurocracy involved in setting up an international money transfer account, if you try to set one up without the proper authorisation you will set off some very load alarm bells.

Besides, what business is it of anyone's what immigrants do with their own money? If they have earned it, (doing a much harder day's work than any American), they are perfectly within their right to send it to Mexico if they want. To complain that they are leeching from your economy goes against the very core ideal of liberal economics, that people should be free to spend their own money as they wish.

(For the record, I strongly believe that the whole world would be much better off with fully porous borders.)

Sounds like a breath of fresh air to me. I think many of the American people feel the same way Fred Thompson does.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjhkYzZiNTAxZjAyZTNjNzkxNjA2ZTNmNDBhNjhlYWU

or listen

http://www2.nationalreview.com/dest/2007/03/20/harvey320pmcommentary.mp3

"I think its time for a little plain talk to the leaders of Mexico. Something like:

hey guys, you’re our friends and neighbors and we love you but it’s time you had a little dose of reality. A sovereign nation loses that status if it cannot secure its own borders and we are going to do whatever is necessary to do so, although our policies won’t be as harsh as yours are along your southern border. And criticizing the U.S. for alternately doing too much and too little to stop your illegal activities is not going to set too well with Americans of good will who are trying to figure a way out of the mess that your and our open borders policy has already created.

My friends, it’s also time for a little introspection. Since we all agree that improving Mexico’s economy will help with the illegal-immigration problem, you might want to consider your own left-of -center policies. For example, nationalized industries are not known for enhancing economic growth. Just a thought. But here’s something even more to the point that you might want to think about: What does it say about the leadership of a country when that country’s economy and politics are dependent upon the exportation of its own citizens?"

Go Fred!
Nice.

except all he's done is blame Mexico.

no solution, just finger pointing. so far, that's as far as most got.

in so far as there is a problem, it is due to the lack of open borders.

Borders exist for a reason.

Borders exist for a reason.

many, actually. only a few of which are actually worthwhile

You would still be wrong. 2.5% is a pittance compared to their overall economy.

You wouldn't be one of those democrats that complains about U.S. grants to Israel making things unfair would you?

I mean, they amount to (only) roughly 3% of their annual GDP...

Besides, what business is it of anyone's what immigrants do with their own money? If they have earned it, (doing a much harder day's work than any American), they are perfectly within their right to send it to Mexico if they want. To complain that they are leeching from your economy goes against the very core ideal of liberal economics, that people should be free to spend their own money as they wish.


Much agreement here, but I'll go further and say that in general, we Americans could afford to be a little poorer for the whole world's sake, and particularly for our hard-working neighbors.

Much agreement here, but I'll go further and say that in general, we Americans could afford to be a little poorer for the whole world's sake, and particularly for our hard-working neighbors.

Speak for yourself. Personally, I prefer steak to hot dogs. :eek:

You wouldn't be one of those democrats that complains about U.S. grants to Israel making things unfair would you?

I mean, they amount to (only) roughly 3% of their annual GDP...

Nope--I have much different reasons to complain about our ties to Israel. Money's not one of them.