RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler

RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

Sanity -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 8:42:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: See its not hard to admit when one is shown to be wrong. Oh, I do it on a regular basis! Good for one's humility. I thought I had made a mistake once... but I was wrong.

farglebargle -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 8:42:34 PM)
If THEY believe it's valid, there's no reason not to use it against them.

luckydog1 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 10:08:47 PM)
"The Congress shall have power …To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof." Right. That the only laws Congress may pass are those which are: 1) Necessary As judged by the Supreme Court, not unelected bloviators, per the constitution and 2) Proper again as judged by the USSC. for only those authorities delegated by The People and The States. Nope, your quote list 4 catagories of what congress has the Duty to regulate. Migration is specifically one of them. I already cited it to you.. Other powers can be granted by the people and states.

luckydog1 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 10:10:20 PM)
If THEY believe it's valid, there's no reason not to use it against them. Glad you admitted you only pretend to support it in order to accomplish something. What exactly would that be? I won't waste anymore time quoting it to you.

farglebargle -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 10:54:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 as judged by the USSC. The same court that ruled Dred Scott? That aside, are you admitting you're NOT COMPETENT to read the very carefully chosen, and clearly written Constitution?

farglebargle -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 10:58:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 If THEY believe it's valid, there's no reason not to use it against them. Glad you admitted you only pretend to support it in order to accomplish something. What exactly would that be? I won't waste anymore time quoting it to you. quote: Glad you admitted you only pretend to support it in order to accomplish something. What exactly would that be? I won't waste anymore time quoting it to you. Why the hell would I a free human being, have to support a federal constitution? I didn't take any oath. Either the Government is faithful to the Constitution, and we can ALL judge that. ( Well, the mentally competent ones. ), or it is not. What I feel about it has nothing to do with it. As long as the Government is going to pretend the Constitution is meaningful, ( and since spring of 1861, it hasn't been.. ) then so will I. They wanna pretend those are the rules, then *THEY* are the ones who must be obedient to it.

luckydog1 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 11:04:59 PM)
The same court that ruled Dred Scott? Well actually the court changes over time, presidents nominate replacements and the congress approves or denies them (if you ever bothered to read the constitution you would be aware of the process), so not the "same" court. You however, keep saying that the Gov was valid BEFORE the civil war, which would make Dredd Scott a valid ruling and the amendments that removed it invalid. Not sure why you feel that way, but whatever.... That aside, are you admitting you're NOT COMPETENT to read the very carefully chosen, and clearly written Constitution? Nope I have shown you are unable to. For example Art I section 9 deals with both migration and the importation of Slaves, and explicity gives Congress the right to regulate both, after 1808. They carefully wrote and chose to include both things (migration and importation of Slaves), regardless of your personal opinion, they choose to write and ratify the constitution with an "and" in Section I art 9 giving Congress the power to regulate BOTH Migration AND importation of slaves( slaves are property and not allowed to migrate, so they could not have possibly meant for Migration to apply to slaves). So we have a direct right for congress to regulate migration as they see fit( after 1808) specifically enumerated in Art I sec 9. What about that do you not grasp?

farglebargle -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 11:06:40 PM)
You are the one who looks to the Supreme Court for interpretation. I don't know why you feel a need to do that, unless you don't trust your own abilities to parse the text. I know what "Necessary" and "Proper" mean.

luckydog1 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 11:16:31 PM)
Because the Constitution declares that judges selected through the democratic process decide what is neccessary, proper and legal. Not you or I.

popeye1250 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 11:18:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 quote: ORIGINAL: cyberdude611 So anyone that disagrees with illegal immigration, wants a secure border, and is against abortion is a Nazi? No. This is not a post about immigration. It's a post about racism. It's fairly obvious which quote was from Buchanan and which was from Hitler. But the point of both is the same: America must maintain a pure, Aryan bloodline. It will destroy itself as a nation if it allows interbreeding with inferior races. Buchanan is a racist and he has made statements indicating that he's a Nazi sympathizer. Anyone who argues that blood purity is a rightful factor in the immigration debate is a racist. Period. Self, not neccessarily! I have no Anglo or Saxon or Aryan blood in me! It's Celtic from both my mother and father. I don't really care what type of "blood" someone has who comes to this country as long as it's "Legal" blood! For a minute there I thought that first paragraph was from Bill or Hillary Clinton.

pinksugarsub -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/22/2007 11:22:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: selfbnd411 So here's a fun little exercise: Which of these quotes is from Pat Buchanan, and which is from Adolf Hitler? Quote 1: "North America, whose population consists in by far the largest part of Germanic elements who mixed but little with the lower colored peoples, shows a different humanity and culture from Central and South America, where the predominantly Latin immigrants often mixed with the aborigines on a large scale. By this one example, we can clearly and distinctly recognize the effect of racial mixture. The Germanic inhabitant of the American continent, who has remained racially pure and unmixed, rose to be master of the continent; he will remain the master as long as he does not fall a victim to defilement of the blood." Quote 2: "What is happening to us? An immigrant invasion of the United States from the Third World, as America's white majority is no longer even reproducing itself. Since Roe v. Wade, America has aborted 45 million of her children. And Asia, Africa and Latin America have sent 45 million of their children to inherit the estate the aborted American children never saw. God is not mocked. And white America is in flight." http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/05/path_to_national_suicide.html http://www.hitler.org/writings/Mein_Kampf/mkv1ch11.html While i do appreciate Your bringing it to my attention that Buchanan is a bigot, i rather suspected this. i wish he received no further attention from A/anyone.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 12:46:10 AM)
selfbnd411; Public policy then.... The first thing that the millions of, at the moment "illegals" would do when legalised would be to bring in their families or girl friends while maintaining their culture and language resulting in large numbers of children either requiring special "needs" education or separate Spanish speaking schools. Thus a financial burden on the US taxpayer. Wage rates would be driven down and there would be a scramble for the diminishing number of "blue collar" jobs. This in itself would be bound to exacerbate the tension that is already present NOW, resulting in increased de facto segregation and rising crime levels. Since many if not most of those legitimised are quite poor but would almost certainly produce children at above averge rates this again would increase the tax burden. I mean maternity and health expenditure. This is a special problem in the UK with our high level of welfare costs. Over the last 200 years or so the achievements of European and North American economies so far exceed what has been brought about elsewhere that why change that which already works,? ie if it aint broke dont fix it ! The most successful sector in the US is based on European stock anyway, NO? The sensible policy IMO is to try to bring about raising standards in those nations from which large numbers are fleeing. That requires interference in their domestic politics since it is corrupt regimes that play a major part in holding such nations back. When this was tried in IRAQ, for whatever reason the Liberals seemed to get very upset. Is this a catch-22 situation. ?

Sinergy -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 12:55:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave The sensible policy IMO is to try to bring about raising standards in those nations from which large numbers are fleeing. Good call. quote: That requires interference in their domestic politics since it is corrupt regimes that play a major part in holding such nations back. Read "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." What destroys a lot of these countries is being saddled with insane amounts of debt by the World Bank. What sealed Saddam's fate in Iraq was his refusal to enter into treaties to sell his oil in US dollars. Sinergy

farglebargle -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 8:11:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 Because the Constitution declares that judges selected through the democratic process decide what is neccessary, proper and legal. Not you or I. Where does it say that? Because it's perfectly clear to anyone with enough brains to apply paint, what laws are necessary and proper to execute those authorities properly delegated. It's not like the list of delegated authorities is all that long. Article I, Section 8. Of course, the "Hamiltonian" will attempt to promote their erroneous opinion that it is not perfectly clear, but the have their own purposes for that "Liberal" interpretation. I didn't think you were on the Libs side.... To a REAL CONSERVATIVE, the Constitution says what it says, and they're smart enough to understand it. Neocon Party Whores subscribe to the Liberal/Hamiltonian belief that they need it to be interpreted for them, because they're too stupid, and a clear and simple reading would prevent their goal of unrestricted federal authority. The 9th and 10th Amendments CLEARLY show that hypothesis to be invalid. The People The State The Republic And in those LIMITED CASES where authority is delegated by The People, or The State, the laws enacted to enact that lawfully delegated LIMITED authority are supreme. But only those laws, not any damn-fool crackhead-fantasy the Hamiltonians/Neocon Party Whores dream up.

caitlyn -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 8:22:22 AM)
To me, this is just an equally entrenched position, on the other side of the issue. Polarization will accomplish nothing. It will only make people dig in. Well done. [;)]

popeye1250 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 8:38:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: luckydog1 So you want to be good socialist, and have good, strong borders, like any good East German citizen? Again the East Germans shot people trying to flee, totaly different than controlling our national borders, as the Congress constitutionally decided we needed to, long before Bush New York has borders. Canada to the north ( Damn Kaybuckkers... ) Vermont to the East, Mass to the East, CT, the Long Island Sound, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Lake Erie, and our friends in Ontario. America is this tiny spot of land between Maryland and Virginia. And us New Yorkers have ceded some few parcels to the Federal Government, but nothing worth mentioning except in passing. Farg you again show your hatred (or is it ignorance) for the Constitution. Try reading Article VI "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." The Feds controll international commerce and borders not the states. Federal law supercedes state and Local law, every single time. The right of Congress to controll Migration is covered in Article I section 9. It is long past 1808. Section 9. The migration or importation of such persons as any of the states now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each person. Luckydog, good post. Selfb, there are only three "races", Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid. This whole feeble argument of trying to confer "racedom" (sic) on "Hispanics" just doesn't hold water! "Hispanic" is NOT a "race", it's an ethnic group. And most of them are Caucaision!!! And it really doesn't matter which ethnic group someone belongs to, if they're in this country illegally, they need to go! Hell, I've called the INS on Irish illegal aliens years ago and they were deported like they should have been. Selfb, you know, you're starting to sound like a Communist. Even if I agreed with you that Pat Buchanan is a racist I'd still want my laws enforced and illegal aliens arrested and deported! "Selfb, yup, Pat Buchanan is a racist, now grab that shotgun and lets round up some illegal aliens for deportation!" Fargle, we don't really need fences, if they start enforcing our laws there won't be any work for illegals. Jail the people who hire them and not for a few months either! I don't understand all this hatred for our European ancesters! That's where the real predjudice is!

Jack45 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 10:54:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 I don't understand all this hatred for our European ancesters! That's where the real predjudice is! I agree with you in that I don't want Russians, Chechnyans, Poles, Irish, Greeks, coming here illegally, and some do, most of those are legal, I oppose current immigration law, it was changed in 1965 and not for the good of this nation. The effect was as designed despite what liars like Teddy Kennedy said at the time and it has almost achieved its goal. Researching that law is very educational. You make a good point about the hatred against our founding people. Everyone else can have, heck they are ENCOURAGED to have, their racial and ethnic pride. I've seen more than I'd like to of BROWN PRIDE shirts and Mexican and other flags flying from homes. Black folks are encouraged to have pride in their race and have black colleges and so forth. However if you are of European background,i.e. European-American, then you are supposed to keep your mouth shut and not express any concern that a deliberate plan, as the 1965 Immigration Act was, to, in effect, march you and your kids into goodbye. Now that is plain talk and right now no politiican dares to put it that way but give a little more time and I think some will and then we shall see real immigration reform in this country. We have SENATORS, like Kennedy and some others saying how worried they are that the ILLEGAL ALIENS, these CRIMINALS who blatantly VIOLATED our laws, "live in fear", well that is might nice of the Liar Kennedy to feel such concern for those lawbreakers but he doesn't give a care about us. I've seen and live among illegals and they do NOT live in "fear" they are VERY comfortable and more than a little AGRESSIVE, I mean you know it beyond any shadow of a doubt. I can tell you if I was just VISITING a country, let alone an ILLEGAL INVADER, I would be a lot more considerate and polite than what I see going on by these Illegals. ADD: Bill Clinton at Portland State University (6/13/98) quote: Today, largely because of immigration, there is no majority race in Hawaii or Houston or New York City. Within five years there will be no majority race in our largest state, California. In a little more than 50 years there will be no majority race in the United States. (Applause.) No other nation in history has gone through demographic change of this magnitude in so short a time.

Sinergy -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 11:05:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: popeye1250 Selfb, there are only three "races", Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid. Ummm. Which race do Sicilians fall under? They are a cross-breeding of caucasoids and negroid peoples during the Moorish conquest of southern Europe. I look forward to your lucid racial analysis. Sinergy On a related note, hispanics from Mexico are a cross-breeding of caucasoids (Spanish predominantly, which are also cross-breeds of Caucasoids and Negroids from the Moorish conquests) and Mongoloids (crossed the ice bridge from Asia and settled southwards).

luckydog1 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 11:22:03 AM)
farf it says it in Article III section 1. "The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." Perhaps you should look up what "judicial" means. You assert the actions of the Gov do not meet the article I sec 8 test, therefore are illegal. The power to decide judicial questions is explicitly stated in ArtIII sec 1. You can end run around this by the States or the People deciding. Not a state or a person. The process for Constitutional Amendments is what is being refered to. Thats 2/3s of us. You can't possibly think that 2/3 of the citizens of the USA want the border to be eliminated. If you do, get cracking on that amendment. After it passes, I will argue with anyone who says it is not legit. You can't possibly think that you enforcing your will over the majority is Constitutional, can you? There is No specific granting of the right for the USA to have a national Border, that I could find. The existance of a border with other Nations specifically different than borders between States, is referenced many times. So we know the founders did believe there was a national border, that the states were not allowed to regulate( as that would involve making agreements with other nations Article I sec 10). The defense of the Nation and reppelling invasion are specifically enumerated duties of the Gov. So laws and regulations are made (the US Code) in order to accomplish these explicity mandated roles for the Feds. "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." Art I section 8. Art I section specifically states that the Gov has the right to make laws on more than just what is enumerated in Art I sec 8.

luckydog1 -> RE: Pat Buchanan vs Adolf Hitler (5/23/2007 11:34:05 AM)
Sinergy, you answered your own question. Scilians(which is not a race) are a mixture of various groups. So are Mexicans, so is basically everyone. If you are Europeon you have non white ancestors Mongol, Persain, and Moorish invasions of Europe for starters. If you are a white American whose people have been here for 100 years or more, you probably have some native blood in you. It was illegal to own land by non whites for a long time in colonial and early America, so people had to pass as white. There do seem to be 3 main types of people (caucasoid, negroid, and mongol), that spread around the world and mixed to get the ethnic groupings we have today, sort of like getting a rainbow out of 3 primary colors..

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875