mannikens to become humikans liberalism and your medical care

[woodsmoke]

Without posting for either or no side...

TO THIS WRITER...the "real" problem is that BOTH sides ALWAYS... resort to shouting "jingos",,,,,,

jin·go·ism
ˈjiNGɡōˌizəm/Submit
nounderogatory
noun: jingoism
extreme patriotism, especially in the form of aggressive or warlike foreign policy.
synonyms: extreme patriotism, chauvinism, extreme nationalism, xenophobia, flag-waving; hawkishness, militarism, belligerence, bellicosity
"a newspaper known for its jingoism"

REMOVE the warlike reference etc. and just substitue...Democrat or Republican...

there is no "comprimise"...

"EXTREME DEMOCRATISM / REPUBLICANISM IN THE FORM OF AN AGRESSIVE OR ANTAGONIST POLICY...

WOODjustsayinabout MODERN useage smoke

[GreyGeek]

.....

Not counting that immigration has to be controlled on any country not just in the US.

BTW, that Europe issue that you were talking about is not just in Europe, this is happening all over the world. It is part of the agenda. NWO

Indeed, Bro. John wrote about it and described it well.

[pookito]

A family of Hispanics who could not speak a word of English moved in across the street from my home. We communicated the best way we could. After a while their English began to improve. They invited us to their family gatherings and we did like wise. She was stay at home for her three children. He put in 12+ plus days running his own roofing and siding company, primarily for homes of his fellow countrymen. Very hard working. From what I could tell their family values were exactly like ours, except that they were Catholic and we are Protestant. I do not know if their status was legal or illegal. Were they the rule or the exception?

I don't know. A data point of one isn't a good benchmark.

However, the city of L.A. alone, a "sanctuary city", paid out $1.3Billion in welfare payments to illegal aliens in 2015 and 2016. Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue, but folks who want to encourage more "immigrants" cite contradictory studies. Both cannot be true, and getting into an argument in statistics is a waste of time, but time will tell. By then it will be too late for you or I to do anything about the outcome, just like it is now too late for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britain and most of the EU.

Lol, dude is not just you. It is what it is. And you are right one is not a good benchmark on anything. I got to say I believe that we should get rid of the social services altogether, and that is coming from a Hispanic. Over a billion dollars on services is pretty steep for a state that is bankrupt.

Not counting that immigration has to be controlled on any country not just in the US.

BTW, that Europe issue that you were talking about is not just in Europe, this is happening all over the world. It is part of the agenda. NWO

Sent from my LG-H932 using Tapatalk

[GreyGeek]

A family of Hispanics who could not speak a word of English moved in across the street from my home. We communicated the best way we could. After a while their English began to improve. They invited us to their family gatherings and we did like wise. She was stay at home for her three children. He put in 12+ plus days running his own roofing and siding company, primarily for homes of his fellow countrymen. Very hard working. From what I could tell their family values were exactly like ours, except that they were Catholic and we are Protestant. I do not know if their status was legal or illegal. Were they the rule or the exception? I don't know. A data point of one isn't a good benchmark.

However, the city of L.A. alone, a "sanctuary city", paid out $1.3Billion in welfare payments to illegal aliens in 2015 and 2016. Rice University economist Donald Huddle has conducted studies and concluded that immigrants (both legal and illegal) in the U.S. receive billions of dollars more in social services from local, state and federal governments than they contribute in revenue, but folks who want to encourage more "immigrants" cite contradictory studies. Both cannot be true, and getting into an argument in statistics is a waste of time, but time will tell. By then it will be too late for you or I to do anything about the outcome, just like it is now too late for Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Britain and most of the EU.

[andystmartin]

So that means that Democrat politicians in California and other states are deliberately flooding their states with alien bodies to increase the apportionment which increases the number of Democrats they can elect to the House. It's a fact few people realize or understand. So, effectively, the alien increases the voting membership of Leftists in the House, and the aliens are handsomely rewarded with monetary payoffs in the form of free goods and services at the expense of taxpayers who have to pay for it.

Sorry, I personally do not buy your "left-wing" conspiracy theories. I just hope the right-wing xenophobes allow the population count to be as accurate as possible.

Except for the handful of states that have no sales tax, anyone making purchases is a "taxpayer". Your exaggerated example of "freeloading" aliens is not accurate.

In my experience, the foreign born-people in my state are hard-working and law-abiding. While I hesitate to get into a battle of statistics, most experts state that immigration has a net positive economic effect and a net zero effect on crime rate. It looks to me that immigration is a net positive force.

Though your attached video plays some interesting games with numbers, the presentation is fairly misleading.

• Legal immigration has been at about 1M / year since 2000, but about 60% of the population are already living here thus there is only a net 400k of new arrivals.
• While the "immigration rate" has recently increased, the "foreign born" share of the population is 13.4% today but the share was close to 15% in 1910. So, as a proportion to the total population, the numbers are not historically out of whack.

We are a nation of immigrants. I, for one, enjoy the fact that at dinnertime I have many restaurant choices available to me: Mexican, Indian, Thai, French, Chinese, Japanese, Italian, etc.

... Jeez, I must be really hungry when I resort to food analogies!

[GreyGeek]

...

But, you pivoted in your response to citizenship questions. I was trying to state that the census and each States' representation in Congress is a function of population -- not citizenship. Otherwise, we ought not count under age children, or women before suffrage, or 60% of the slaves before the 14th Amendment -- but we do. There is at least one question in the proposed 2020 Census form which can be construed as a threat to undocumented immigrants who live in a state. In California this may be more of an issue than in Nebraska. But is indeed a contentious issue. As a resident of California, I'd prefer not to be under counted and, thus, under represented in Congress.

I did pivot, because voting is a citizenship right only. Sadly,

The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and non-citizens) of the 50 states. In the 2010 Census, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated, based on administrative records, back to a home state. This is the same procedure used in 2000.

So that means that Democrat politicians in California and other states are deliberately flooding their states with alien bodies to increase the apportionment which increases the number of Democrats they can elect to the House. It's a fact few people realize or understand. So, effectively, the alien increases the voting membership of Leftists in the House, and the aliens are handsomely rewarded with monetary payoffs in the form of free goods and services at the expense of taxpayers who have to pay for it.

It is, IMO, part of a grand plan to destroy the Rule Of Law under the Constitution and replace it with rule by Manifesto where equality of opportunity is replaced by equality of outcome and people given participation trophies to replace real achievements. The influx of illegal aliens cannot be allowed to continue.

[andystmartin]

True, I should have said "Three-Fifths Compromise".

But, you pivoted in your response to citizenship questions. I was trying to state that the census and each States' representation in Congress is a function of population -- not citizenship. Otherwise, we ought not count under age children, or women before suffrage, or 60% of the slaves before the 14th Amendment -- but we do. There is at least one question in the proposed 2020 Census form which can be construed as a threat to undocumented immigrants who live in a state. In California this may be more of an issue than in Nebraska. But is indeed a contentious issue. As a resident of California, I'd prefer not to be under counted and, thus, under represented in Congress.

[GreyGeek]

Just a point of clarification: the three-fifths ratio is in the original, ratified text of the Constitution -- Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

The point of the "Great Compromise" was to find middle ground between the non-slave states that did not want to count slaves and the slave states who wanted to count slaves in their populations. This was important back then (and is relevant even today) in that the States' representation in Congress is a function of their population. Today, we are fighting over how to count undocumented immigrants in the next census.

The Great Compromise resulted in our bicameral form of government, where the House is represented by population and the Senate is has two members from each state, and to the establishment of the Electoral College, which the article in History.com points out.

The debate that led to the Great Compromise was about how to tax states, and was interesting. Slaves were imported, bought and sold as property. They did the work of "Freemen" more cheaply because slaves were not as well clothed, housed or fed, and weren't given any time off. When trying to determine how to raise taxes to run the government the debate I linked to pointed out that income was generated by people. Now, how to count the "people" was the question. Who were "people" and who were not?

First written "July 12. 1776, the articles were debated from day to day, & time to time for two years, and were ratified July 9, '78, by 10 states, by N. Jersey on the 26th. of Nov. of the same year, and by Delaware on the 23d. of Feb. following. Maryland alone held off 2 years more, acceding to them Mar. 1, 81. and thus closing the obligation.rejected on Aug 1st, 1778"

The Dred Scott decision, in 1857, as reported in Wikipedia, "a negro, whose ancestors were imported into [the U.S.], and sold as slaves", whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court; and that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in the federal territories acquired after the creation of the United States. Dred Scott, an enslaved man of "the negro African race" who had been taken by his owners to free states and territories, attempted to sue for his freedom. In a 7–2 decision written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, the court denied Scott's request."

There were, from the time of the establishment of the colonies up until 1857, Blacks who were, some from their birth, freemen in this country. They even fought and died in the Revolutionary war. By claiming that "a negro whose ancestors were imported into the US and sold as slaves, whether enslaved or free, could not be an American citizen ...." the Dred Scott decision challenged the Freeman status of every Black freeman. Rather than resolve the issue of slavery it guaranteed the civil war which followed three years later. As this historical incident proves, some issues cannot be compromised.

I disagree with your contention that what you call "undocumented immigrants", who are in fact illegal aliens regardless of race or origin, is the subject of a "representation" debate. They entered this country illegally, are in violation of our immigration laws, and have no legal claim to benefits of citizenship, or the right to vote, except in the minds of the Democrats, who view them as potential voters for free government services, which the Dems are always pushing as a way to buy votes. This strategy is a renewal of an attempt that was outlined by the Cloward–Piven strategy in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".

The capture of the Democrat Party by Marxist at their 1968 convention at Chicago is no where made clearer than in then former DNC chairman Howard Dean's congratulations to the Party of European Socialists at their 2009 EU convention. Note especially what Bill Clinton explains, in carefully chosen words, to the delegates at the 2:31 mark, as to why socialists around the world had such a hard time after the fall of the USSR:

[TWPonKubuntu]

...
Today, we are fighting over how to count undocumented immigrants in the next census.

An excellent point. I'll be watching to see how this is resolved. I do have opinions on this, but I don't think my vote (I'm a real citizen) will count for much in an era when the courts and "policy" have more control on what is actually done. "Policy" is not law, but it is used to determine government actions "outside" of law.

[andystmartin]

A century before that SCOTUS decided that a Black man was worth only 3/5ths of White man in the Dred Scott decision.

Just a point of clarification: the three-fifths ratio is in the original, ratified text of the Constitution -- Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3.

The point of the "Great Compromise" was to find middle ground between the non-slave states that did not want to count slaves and the slave states who wanted to count slaves in their populations. This was important back then (and is relevant even today) in that the States' representation in Congress is a function of their population. Today, we are fighting over how to count undocumented immigrants in the next census.

[GreyGeek]

Anjem Choudary, the leader of that Muslim group is now in jail. So, he didn't get to usurp British law at any level. Plus Russia Today as a news source?

RT is just as good as the US MNM, which is a constant purveyor of fake news.

Religion has always had a whip hand over people's freedom of expression even in the U.S...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapli..._New_Hampshire

That said, targeting selected cases does not paint an overall picture and if you don't care about the UK, why are you watching and posting Pat Condell videos

Because Leftist here are working for the same conditions that Britain and the EU currently are experiencing, and Condell offers a warning of things to come if Americans don't pay attention to your history and events. Islamization of Britain is proceeding full speed ahead. Even the Muslims predict that Britain will be a Caliphate by 2050, so confident are they. That Choudary is in jail now doesn't mean he'll serve his full term. He'll get credit for the months he spent on remand and may be released as early as December of this year. Besides, do you know who replaced him, because he will be replaced until he gets out. By the way, are you familiar with the Muslim concept of Taqiyya?


Your citation of the Chaplinsky case and Justice Murphy's "two tier" excuse illustrates the problems with the SCOTUS straying beyond the text of the Bill of Rights. Reading Prof Blasi's review of the matter points out how Chaplinsky, the victim, became the criminal. Not long after that case FDR abridged the Constitutional rights of hundreds of thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry, because they were physically more distinguishable than Germans and Italians who actually did sabotage the war effort, and SCOTUS did nothing. A century before that SCOTUS decided that a Black man was worth only 3/5ths of White man in the Dred Scott decision. Regarding free speech your citation noted ""that lower courts "have reached maddeningly inconsistent results" on what is and is not protected by the First Amendment in the area of fighting words".

[TWPonKubuntu]

Bings, with similar reasoning: Wikipedia as an information source?

[Bings]

Anjem Choudary, the leader of that Muslim group is now in jail. So, he didn't get to usurp British law at any level. Plus Russia Today as a news source?

Religion has always had a whip hand over people's freedom of expression even in the U.S...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapli..._New_Hampshire

That said, targeting selected cases does not paint an overall picture and if you don't care about the UK, why are you watching and posting Pat Condell videos

[GreyGeek]

mannikens to become humikans liberalism and your medical care

That's not actually true. There are communities of Muslim who follow their own rules and abide by rulings of "Sharia Courts" but it does not take precedence over British Law and is no different to the many enclaves of niche religious groups in the US that have their own rules. Part of the problem for some Muslim women is when they are not married in a way that is recognised by the state so they are afforded none of the financial protections that married women have in the UK when their "husband" decides he wants to move on.

Pat Condell doesn't say anything best, his assessments are purely one sided rants designed to outrage people rather than provide a sensible analysis. The vast majority of people who complain about people sent to jail for hate speech never mention what the people said that got them sent to jail or the context in which is it in. Threatening behaviour has long been crime in this country, way before social media.

This man was not prosecuted for "hate speech":

https://www.theguardian.com/film/201...ury-appearance
Would that failure to prosecute have anything to do with the fact that Trump is not a person favored by the Left?

This man WAS prosecuted, because he "offended" someone else or hurt someone's feelings. As Pat Condell points out, it is because the term "hate speech" as defined in British law is so vague that it can be construed to criminalize anything those in power, (hint: the Left) want to criminalize:
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-a8270631.html
Notice that the author of the article, also British, is treading on egg shells and signaling his virtue repeatedly to avoid prosecution while at the same time writing:

...The terrifying thing about this conviction is that the judge sided with the prosecution who said “context and intent are irrelevant” in a joke? In a bloody joke? Context is everything in a flipping joke!


It’s happened. Like Iran, like Burma, like other countries where freedom of speech isn’t really their thing, the Scottish courts have convicted someone for telling a joke. This sets a frightening precedence for all of us. Anyone who takes offence at something which is meant in jest could eventually have a case to take to court.


You can’t pick and choose when you want free speech. You can’t protest against the imprisonment of a comedian in Burma but turn a blind eye when it’s a comic on your own turf who you find unpalatable.

This women was prosecuting for quoting the rap music of Snoop Dog:
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news...yrics-14543694

Apparently this is NOT hate speech:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tnuL4N-VOpo

And Sharia Law isn't usurping British law at the local level:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4g

You've seen countless videos on the news and YouTube of Muslim protesters in Britain and Europe showing "Death to and you never hear of prosecutions for that hate speech in Britain. But make a FB post about doing something similar to Muslims and you go to prison for two years:
https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/0...id-on-facebook

However, I really don't care about the future of British politics because they have already sealed their destiny, and the unarmed British population cannot do anything about it.

Here in America, we have the 1st and 2nd Amendments. The Left (Communists a.k.a. Democrats) are doing their best to repeal the 2nd and are using their power in academia, the media and Hollywood to destroy the first by political correctness. Since the fundamental views of the Marxist and the Conservatives are irreconcilable, i.e., there is no middle ground, that only leaves what Saul Alinsky, author of "Rules For Radicals", thought was inevitable: a shooting war. That's why he and his best friend spent their weekends doing target practice outside of Chicago leading up to the 1968 Democrat Convention, which they thought would start the shooting war. AntiFa, whom the Left has not repudiated, is already calling for a "violent revolution" (i.e., a shooting war). Almost 1/3rd of Americans own one or more firearms and ammunition. That's 80-100 million people. If only 10% were sheep dogs and not sheep, that would represent 8-10 million well armed Americans. That's 4 to 5 times the size of the total US Military, which is currently at 2,083,100, with only half of those active. And, many of those active US Military are also Conservative and would bring with them to the fight the arms and equipment they have at their command, planes, helios, tanks, heavy weapons, etc... Probably 10% of that 8-10 million own several weapons of various calibers and 10s, if not 100s of thousands of rounds of ammo. The best prepared of these numbers are called "preppers", the best estimates of which put their numbers at between 3 to 5 million. Probably at least half of the 8-10 million are ex-military and trained in weapons and tactics.

But, I'm no prophet or the son of a prophet and nothing I think might happen or may happen. And, at 76, I probably won't be around to see the madness if or when it starts.

[Bings]

Already in many parts of Britain Sharia law takes precedence of British Law, and as a result women have lost half of their political rights, rights they enjoyed when their nation was primarily Christian. Women there are now truly second class citizens in those Sharia controlled areas.

That's not actually true. There are communities of Muslim who follow their own rules and abide by rulings of "Sharia Courts" but it does not take precedence over British Law and is no different to the many enclaves of niche religious groups in the US that have their own rules. Part of the problem for some Muslim women is when they are not married in a way that is recognised by the state so they are afforded none of the financial protections that married women have in the UK when their "husband" decides he wants to move on.

Pat Condell doesn't say anything best, his assessments are purely one sided rants designed to outrage people rather than provide a sensible analysis. The vast majority of people who complain about people sent to jail for hate speech never mention what the people said that got them sent to jail or the context in which is it in. Threatening behaviour has long been crime in this country, way before social media.