Yeah, I don't really believe they've "evolved" on the issue. It would be refreshing if that is the case, but what I think is more likely is that they are starting to believe that they're never going to gain any ground on this issue with the way things are trending demographically, so they had better get something done right now before they lose even more ground.
Do we care what this guy thinks?
Latino commits a crime? Lock his ass up. Just like a person of any other color or creed should be locked up.
As a proud Latino of Puerto Rican descent, I wish someone would say what you said to my face. Really really do. So I give them the response they so badly need. Won't happen, though. Too many keyboard warriors.
Every perpetrator who commits crime should face the full force of the Law, the punishment for that crime.Latino commits a crime? Lock his ass up. Just like a person of any other color or creed should be locked up.
Including Illegal Immigration.
You mean like guys who post empty e-threats about wishing they were face to face with other posters.Too many keyboard warriors.
Give it rest tough guy. Any dumb chucklehead can e-fight with his e-fists.
Fight with words and ideas.
Last edited by HessStation; 11-11-2012 at 10:02 AM.
La verdad duele...¡Si se puede...ser parásitos!
Once more into the breach:
If Republicans want to change their stance on immigration, they should do so on the merits, not out of a belief that only immigration policy stands between them and a Republican Hispanic majority. It is not immigration policy that creates the strong bond between Hispanics and the Democratic party, but the core Democratic principles of a more generous safety net, strong government intervention in the economy, and progressive taxation. Hispanics will prove to be even more decisive in the victory of Governor Jerry Brown’s Proposition 30, which raised upper-income taxes and the sales tax, than in the Obama election.
And California is the wave of the future. A March 2011 poll by Moore Information found that Republican economic policies were a stronger turn-off for Hispanic voters in California than Republican positions on illegal immigration. Twenty-nine percent of Hispanic voters were suspicious of the Republican party on class-warfare grounds — “it favors only the rich”; “Republicans are selfish and out for themselves”; “Republicans don’t represent the average person”– compared with 7 percent who objected to Republican immigration stances.
I spoke last year with John Echeveste, founder of the oldest Latino marketing firm in southern California, about Hispanic politics. “What Republicans mean by ‘family values’ and what Hispanics mean are two completely different things,” he said. “We are a very compassionate people, we care about other people and understand that government has a role to play in helping people.”
And a strong reason for that support for big government is that so many Hispanics use government programs. U.S.-born Hispanic households in California use welfare programs at twice the rate of native-born non-Hispanic households. And that is because nearly one-quarter of all Hispanics are poor in California, compared to a little over one-tenth of non-Hispanics. Nearly seven in ten poor children in the state are Hispanic, and one in three Hispanic children is poor, compared to less than one in six non-Hispanic children. One can see that disparity in classrooms across the state, which are chock full of social workers and teachers’ aides trying to boost Hispanic educational performance.
The idea of the “social issues” Hispanic voter is also a mirage. A majority of Hispanics now support gay marriage, a Pew Research Center poll from last month found. The Hispanic out-of-wedlock birth rate is 53 percent, about twice that of whites. The demographic changes set into motion by official and de facto immigration policy favoring low-skilled over high-skilled immigrants mean that a Republican party that purports to stand for small government and free markets faces an uncertain future.
Just because a person is poor, Hispanic, African American, Gay, White Woman or 'other' should their vote be less than anyone who is not in those categories?
(Est. November 8, 2012) where losing an election by 1% of the vote is being "left in the dust"
Ideologues like B. Hussein don't de-queer their sociopathies to suit conservatives, why should conservatives pollute their decency and normalcy?
besides, the libs need the conservatives work ethic to stay intact to pay for their stuff
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 11-11-2012 at 12:00 PM.
This is a good thing. The GOP needs to run a Presidential Candidate who is closer to the political center. This is good for the USA. The choice between a moderate Democrat and a 'fire and brimstone' Republican too many in the electorate is no choice.
Whether this move can or will happen is another question.
Also, if the GOP moves a little left will they lose their 'pro-life', NRA, "small-government", "rape is really a good thing", immigrants are bad for the US...one issue voters?
If so will losing these voters hurt them in the Electoral College just as much as only have the white male demographic?
Last edited by HessStation; 11-11-2012 at 12:38 PM.
Issue #1: Abortion. The "Compromise" is 100% legal abortion on demand.
Issue #2: Illegal Immigration. The "Compromise" is the Pathway to Citizenship and increased legal immigration from Mexico and points south, a de facto Amnesty Program and 20 million new voters voting 70%+ (D) and more every year. Empoty promiuse to "secure the border made, never carried through, i.e. the Reagan Amnsety.
Issue #3: Gay Marriage. The "Compromise" is 100% legalized, full equallity Gay Marriageand forced acceptence (not just tolerence).
Issue #4: Healthcare. The "Compromise" is and has always been a full State controlled single-payor Euro-style system Anything less is a stepping stone only.
Issue #5: Womens Rights. The "Compromise" is absolute equallity in pay, despite obvious real-world differences in productivity and attendence, a de-facto quota system to punish those not hring "enough" women, and all set without actual performence being a factor. Oh, and free condoms on deman, paid for by taxpayers.
Issue #6: Taxes. The "Compromise" is same as it's ever been, higher taxes now and a promise to "Cut spending" that will either not be met at all, or will be met via blaoted initial budgeting (i.e. 10% increase y-t-y proposed) "cut" to "only" a 8% increase in spending y-t-y.
Issue #7: Entitlements. The "Compromise" is no change in anything, period. No new enforcement, no action to stop fraud and abuse, and more funding across the board. More funding, more programs, more redistribtion.
Issue #8: Diversity and Affirmative Action. The "Compromise" is that we accept that people will continue to be given opportunity because of their skin tone only, not the content of their character or the content of their resume. Diversity > All Else.
Issue #9: Energy. The "Compromise" is nothing related to Oil and Gas, higher taxes on oil, gas and coal, and massive new investments in gree energy that requires massive direct-payment subsidy to get 2% of the marketplace, in the name of climate change, while other Countries ignore the issue completely (China, India, Brazil, etc).
There is no compromise. There is only capitulation described by (D) as "moderate compromise".
Where (D) has won, IMO, rather clearly is the war of words and language. Depsite very little actual "extremism" or "far right" policy positions, the left has won in getting the majority of voters to see them as a de facto American Taliban of Race Hatred, Poor Hatred and in it only for the rich banksters and special interests.
Wait and see how the fothcoming "compromises" work.
But I'll be honest, HERE Is where I WOULD "compromise". Whatever tax rate (D) wants to set on those making over 1 million per year, I'd give it to them. Whatever tax rate they want to set on Capital Gains, I'd give THAT to them as well. And whatever cuts they want to make to the millitary, I'd ok that too (we always have the nukes for actual defense).
As a party, I'd simply no vote (i.e. abstain) and let them pass without a yes/no vote from (R). The (D) can own it.
And however it turns out, it turns out. If it works, (R) is proven conclusivelt wrong anyway, and it was the rght choice. If it fails, it's owned wholesale by (D). Thats my compromise (well, and I'm all for gay marriage too tbh amonsgt a few other things, mostly social).
Last edited by Warfish; 11-11-2012 at 01:17 PM.