The Speech that won the election

[Cutlass]

yeah they showed up uninvited(but this was in the 19th century before communication between continents was so easy) went to Ellis Island and most were accepted, some were turned away. at least they did it by the book. nowadays there are millions who aren't from Mexico who have to go through a costly and timely proccess to live in the USA and it's an insult to their efforts when mexicans swarm over the border.

Except that doesn't really describe what happened. The Ellis Island years were a big part of American immigration. But they by no means represent the bulk of the ancestors of the current American population. Going back to early colonial times, for 100s of years people just showed up with no one really regulating it at all. And at all times there were people who came outside of official channels. The Mexicans, few of them actually cross the border illegally. And the fact is that it has been tacit government policy to allow these people in. We could have cracked down on the employers decades ago, which is the most effective way to discourage immigrants. Yet we chose to look the other way.

 

[kochman]

Now Kochman, I'm sorry, but I have to disagree here.

Romney uses his shameless flip-flopping to great advantage. He's whatever he needs to be for his target audience. It's completely unfair to expect a political opponent to just ignore such a huge opening, and it's frankly dishonest of Romney to change his positions so fluidly.

For someone like Romney who only cares about economics it might seem fair game to be completely flippant about issues like abortion, but it's unfair to people, on both sides, who take those issues seriously.

What position does Romney leave a staunch pro-lifer or conservative pro-choicer in? He's been on both sides of the fence quite frequently. Romnesia is a completely fair attack despite the silly delivery.

I don't see why he has to have some huge position on things like abortion... It's the law of the land, doesn't really matter because short of a Constitutional Amendment, it's legal and not going away at the Federal level.
So, he chooses the position of his targeted voting constituency. I have no problem with this.

His passion is the economy... That's what we need right now. The current path isn't working.

However, I can't vote for him because part of his answer on the economy is to cut my pay and benefits.

I don't watch TV so I don't see the ads, but from the debates, it seems he's running a much more positive message than negative, and more positive than Romney.

Well, I would potentially disagree... but, there are probably stats out there. I'm not going to look into it, because like you, I don't watch broadcast/cable TV either.

Romney's got that whole "I want to create jobs" talk, but that's not being positive, that's being negative on the other guy with pleasant rhetoric.

If the performance of Obama is negative, why should Romney not use that? That's pretty much the biggest concern of most Americans at this time. If the economy was rocking and rolling, it wouldn't be a tied race right now, it would be a cake walk for Obama.

But Obama's pretty up on his accomplishments and frankly I think he has every right to be.

Data disagrees.

Now the flip side is that Obama had better not let Romney get away with being able to flip positions so easily. To make that stick in the minds of voters, being clever about it makes it stick so that they don't forget he changed positions with the next news cycle. People aren't dumb, but they sure as hell are too busy with everything else to devote enough attention.

Actually, people are dumb, Hygro. Not everyone, but a large proportion of each party is... that's why that percentage follows everything their party says, lock step... because they are too dumb to fully think things out. These are the people the two parties prey on when they fearmonger, and it is incredibly effective.

To say Obama has been positive... when his side is calling it "war on women", etc... it's a stretch. Both sides are desperate, Obama has the hinderance of poor performance that makes it easy for the Repubs... the best Obama has against Romney is, he's changed his positions.

Obama's changed his positions. If I were Romney I'd be hammering that out... the guy's been the most authoritarian president of my life, and his foreign affairs skills have been atrocious. Gitmo is still open, transparency is non-existent, etc, etc...

 

[Chiteng]

It is allowed. But just saying you disagree with something because that's your opinion on the matter, doesn't get us very far. I suggest that that is sophistry.

Sophistry is a false argument. I am suggesting that I need no more than not wanting them here. You cannot refute my desire, unless you wish to suggest that I actually want them here.

I need no more than that. If enough people agree, then I win. I suggest that a great many people DO agree with me. More every day.

 

[Borachio]

But, for goodness, sake WHY don't you want "them" "here"?

It's simply not enough to say "just because" - if you base your public political actions (like voting) on this "opinion".

 

[Quackers]

Except that doesn't really describe what happened. The Ellis Island years were a big part of American immigration. But they by no means represent the bulk of the ancestors of the current American population. Going back to early colonial times, for 100s of years people just showed up with no one really regulating it at all. And at all times there were people who came outside of official channels. The Mexicans, few of them actually cross the border illegally. And the fact is that it has been tacit government policy to allow these people in. We could have cracked down on the employers decades ago, which is the most effective way to discourage immigrants. Yet we chose to look the other way.

So you support open borders because in 1750 lots of people turned up illegally too?

 

[sophie]

I guess it's back to Germany with me

Dang, and to think I was that close to being forced back to Canada or god forbid the UK. Dodged a bullet there. Thanks dad!

 

[Formaldehyde]

...can't campaign on his record, but has to resort to just demonizing the opposition... He sucks... BAD!

You mean he has much in common with Mittens and the rest of the Republican Party, only less so?

His passion is the economy... That's what we need right now. The current path isn't working.

And you are going to try to blame that all on Obama, instead of those who deliberately deregulating the banking industry and the bipartisan effort to end the resulting recession?

What were you just saying about "demonizing the opposition"?

 

[kochman]

And you are going to try to blame that all on Obama, instead of those who deliberately deregulating the banking industry and the bipartisan effort to end the resulting recession?

What were you just saying about "demonizing the opposition"?

He's had 4 years to turn it around, and hasn't. You're still playing the blame game after 4 years? Time to retire then...
Incumbents either run on their record, or their path... he's running on being affable.

 

[Leoreth]

Nope =) That is sophistry.

You apparently don't know what sophistry means, but need a fancy word to throw around in discussions. Hint: it is not sophistry to ask others for reasons for their opinion beyond "I don't like it". Instead it's the basis of the sort of discussion this forum is for.

YOU are the one calling people names. Not me.

I'm not calling your names. I just label your position as what it is.

You on the other hand want to violently deport people but can't even be arsed to give good reasons for it, beyond your personal dislike/hatred.

I have nothing to justify. In the USA, not wanting something is allowed.
It is enough.

Of course you are allowed to not want something for stupid reasons. But don't expect anyone else to take your stupid reasons as valid arguments for how the government should deal with immigrants. And do expect others to call your stupid reasons stupid.

 

[Chiteng]

But, for goodness, sake WHY don't you want "them" "here"?

It's simply not enough to say "just because" - if you base your public political actions (like voting) on this "opinion".

I have told you several of my 'real' reasons.

I dont like people who break the rules.
I dont like people who game the system.
They ARE criminals and they became criminals, knowing full well what they were doing.
They use the children as emotional 'hooks' to gain sympathy to allow them to stay.
That is a VERY base thing to do. I find it anathema.
No matter HOW badly THEY think they are being treated, it is self-inflicted.
I did NOT invite them here.
I do NOT profit by them being here.
I owe them NOTHING.
They are NOT slaves, they can leave any time. No one will stop them.
They want ME, to pay for their children. I dont want to. In my mind the PARENTS
bear the cost of having children. If you cant afford it, dont have them. Dont ask ME
to pay for your bad judgement.

I also have other reasons but I am not allowed to voice them because every time I do
I get a warning from the mods, no matter how polite I am in stating them.

 

[Chiteng]

You apparently don't know what sophistry means, but need a fancy word to throw around in discussions. Hint: it is not sophistry to ask others for reasons for their opinion beyond "I don't like it". Instead it's the basis of the sort of discussion this forum is for.


I'm not calling your names. I just label your position as what it is.

You on the other hand want to violently deport people but can't even be arsed to give good reasons for it, beyond your personal dislike/hatred.


Of course you are allowed to not want something for stupid reasons. But don't expect anyone else to take your stupid reasons as valid arguments for how the government should deal with immigrants. And do expect others to call your stupid reasons stupid.

I am well aware of what sophistry means. =)
You cant manipulate the argument. You dont want what I want.
THAT is the argument. I do not call YOU names, even tho I easily could.
My argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Calling me names when I know my argument is perfectly valid, and legal, merely
irritates someone who knows better. I do NOT need to conform to your views.
It is NOT required.

 

[Leoreth]

Nobody asked you to confirm to anyone's views, so drop the persecution complex. Also, drop this annoying habit of capitalizing random words.

 

[Hygro]

He's had 4 years to turn it around, and hasn't. You're still playing the blame game after 4 years? Time to retire then...
Incumbents either run on their record, or their path... he's running on being affable.

Why do you feel four years is enough time for a president to bring an economy from that recession to equilibrium output?

 

[kochman]

Why do you feel four years is enough time for a president to bring an economy from that recession to equilibrium output?

Because it has been done before.

 

[sophie]

Because it has been done before.

Not from a recession this deep and this widespread.

 

[kochman]

Not from a recession this deep and this widespread.

Oh, Obama has the worse recession ever?
I wasn't aware of this... citation?

The excuse making and casting blame only goes so far... and 4 years is farther than MOST let it go.
Not on this site though hahaha

 

[sophie]

Oh, Obama has the worse recession ever?
I wasn't aware of this... citation?

The excuse making and casting blame only goes so far... and 4 years is farther than MOST let it go.
Not on this site though hahaha

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

This is the longest-lasting, and deepest recession we've had in the postwar period. The damned thing didn't even trough until 2009. It's understandable that this one would take quite a bit longer to get out of than previous recessions.

 

[Quackers]

Nobody asked you to confirm to anyone's views, so drop the persecution complex. Also, drop this annoying habit of capitalizing random words.

persecution complex? you mention this often or something similiar. it is actually a real thing. if you have an unpopular opinion you will get hounded by like 50 other lefty posters. imagine if useless was a ayn rand libertarian, combined with his posting style he would get ripped to shreds by you hyenas but because he's a dirty lefty he gets away with so much nonsense.

 

[Murky]

I have told you several of my 'real' reasons.

I dont like people who break the rules.

Some rules are made to be broken. I know lots of people who drive over the speed limit. They are endangering themselves and others and they have every right to be here.

I dont like people who game the system.

Lots of legal citizens "game the system." It's the only game in town.

They ARE criminals and they became criminals, knowing full well what they were doing.

Crossing a border illegally is a pretty minor offense. Unless they commit some other crime we have more important things to worry about.

They use the children as emotional 'hooks' to gain sympathy to allow them to stay.

People have children because it's part of being human. It has nothing to do with gaining sympathy.

That is a VERY base thing to do. I find it anathema.

I find it quite normal.

No matter HOW badly THEY think they are being treated, it is self-inflicted.

Is it? Do you realize how many low-paying jobs were once filled by illegal immigrants. These were people who were harvesting crops when nobody else would. There were recent years where food was left to rot in the fields because a lack of laborers.

I did NOT invite them here.

Nobody invited most American ancestors here. It's a nation of immigrants.

I do NOT profit by them being here.

So? Why does this matter to the debate?

I owe them NOTHING.

And they owe you nothing.

They are NOT slaves, they can leave any time. No one will stop them.

There is a lot of human trafficking and slavery in the world. I imagine that illegal immigrants often times do get paid low-wages for their time. In a world where the choice is to starve or work for low-wages they choose the latter.

They want ME, to pay for their children. I dont want to. In my mind the PARENTS
bear the cost of having children. If you cant afford it, dont have them. Dont ask ME
to pay for your bad judgement.

Nobody is asking you to. Our system has subsidized labor costs for a long time. They would only be joining into an existing system.

I also have other reasons but I am not allowed to voice them because every time I do
I get a warning from the mods, no matter how polite I am in stating them.

Your hate is already apparent. There are plenty of places on the internet that love hate speech especially towards people with brown skin. You are free to go there if you want. Nobody is stopping you.

 

[kochman]

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/studies/recession_perspective/

This is the longest-lasting, and deepest recession we've had in the postwar period. The damned thing didn't even trough until 2009. It's understandable that this one would take quite a bit longer to get out of than previous recessions.

OK, and part of that is his policies have failed to fix it... get it?