• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Civil War Brewing

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: BoomerD


http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

"Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577990/Socialism.html

"The terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably. Today, however, communism designates those theories and movements that, in accordance with one view of the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, advocate the abolition of capitalism and all private profit, by means of violent revolution if necessary. Marx organized the International Workingmen's Association, or First International; when this congress met at Geneva in 1866, it was the first international forum for the promulgation of Communist doctrine. This doctrine was later explained by Lenin, who defined a socialist society as one in which the workers, free from capitalist exploitation, receive the full product of their labor. Most socialists deny the claim of Communists to have achieved socialism in the USSR, which they regarded as an authoritarian tyranny. But after World War II, many Communist-led political parties in the Soviet sphere of influence still used the designation socialist in their names. In East Germany (now part of the united Federal Republic of Germany), for example, the name adopted by the merged Communist and Social Democratic parties was the Socialist Unity party.

The modern socialist movement, as distinguished from communism, had its origin largely in the revisionist movement of the late 19th century. The worsening condition of the proletariat, or workers, and the class war predicted by Marx for Western Europe had not come about. Many socialist thinkers began to doubt the indispensability of revolution and to revise other basic tenets of Marxism. Led by the German writer Eduard Bernstein, they declared that socialism could best be attained by reformist, parliamentary, and evolutionary methods, including the support of the bourgeoisie."





That is a very informative article, much better then wiki which is written by some libertarian wingnut whacking off to greasy pictures of ayn rand it seems. But for these folks reality or history serves no purpose unless they rewrite it, and then it is broken down into quick simple talking points by a punduit in a few soundbytes, in other words socialism=communism, conservative=low taxes small gubberment, liberalism=social welfare, poor=lazy, anywhere but america=third world.
 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: BoomerD


http://www.romm.org/soc_com.html

"Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577990/Socialism.html

"The terms socialism and communism were once used interchangeably. Today, however, communism designates those theories and movements that, in accordance with one view of the teachings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, advocate the abolition of capitalism and all private profit, by means of violent revolution if necessary. Marx organized the International Workingmen's Association, or First International; when this congress met at Geneva in 1866, it was the first international forum for the promulgation of Communist doctrine. This doctrine was later explained by Lenin, who defined a socialist society as one in which the workers, free from capitalist exploitation, receive the full product of their labor. Most socialists deny the claim of Communists to have achieved socialism in the USSR, which they regarded as an authoritarian tyranny. But after World War II, many Communist-led political parties in the Soviet sphere of influence still used the designation socialist in their names. In East Germany (now part of the united Federal Republic of Germany), for example, the name adopted by the merged Communist and Social Democratic parties was the Socialist Unity party.

The modern socialist movement, as distinguished from communism, had its origin largely in the revisionist movement of the late 19th century. The worsening condition of the proletariat, or workers, and the class war predicted by Marx for Western Europe had not come about. Many socialist thinkers began to doubt the indispensability of revolution and to revise other basic tenets of Marxism. Led by the German writer Eduard Bernstein, they declared that socialism could best be attained by reformist, parliamentary, and evolutionary methods, including the support of the bourgeoisie."





That is a very informative article, much better then wiki which is written by some libertarian wingnut it seems. But for these folks reality or history serves no purpose unless they rewrite it, and then it is broken down into quick simple talking points by a punduit in a few soundbytes, in other words socialism=communism, conservative=low taxes small gubberment, liberalism=social welfare, poor=lazy, anywhere but america=third world.

You're an IDIOT if you think communism is conservative. Communism is the exact opposite of Capitalism, and there is no free market and everyone is equal in their misery. It's the ultimate liberal wetdream.
 
Originally posted by: ntdz


You're an IDIOT if you think communism is conservative. Communism is the exact opposite of Capitalism, and there is no free market and everyone is equal in their misery. It's the ultimate liberal wetdream.

You have no clue do you? Totalitarism has always been a conservative goal, authority is the constant theme, fearing people into the so-called old ways and raping the working class under the guise of personal/fiscal responsibility to control, one the likes of hitler or stalins regimes, total dedication to party and nationalism, liberalism is to be rounded up, gassed or sent to a gulag as opposition undermines the authoritarism. Your a tool is what it is, kinda like a good german before ww2, "conservative values" are nothing less then a false front when it comes to action.

Every dicatorship started under a guise of fooling the people, but what they morph into once the elites have gained power is nothing less then a far-right wet dream.

Speaking of right-wing wet dreams, see if you can find a few of these, and then compare to the realities of what communism and fascism turned out to be in practice.


1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.


The only real difference between the USSRs totalitarianism and fascist authoritarism is the fact that corporations were taken over by the state; to become the biggest corporate monopoly of all. The biggest betrayal of socialist values I can think of as far as empowering the working class along with taking their rights away to unionize, both governments did their best to root out all democratic socialists, commies, left wing thinkers, "intellectuals", homosexuals, immigrants etc. to be put into labor camps.

The same ideas the right-wing pundits on the radio cheer on daily, but hey, why be afraid of being a right-wing fascist? What are you? Un-PC? How dare you! You guys have a long history, and no liberal can tell you different, I mean, you all know how to deal with those liberal "traitors" right?

That is until you have to be smacked down again by the free "liberal" world. (funny how america was desribed as the last bastion of liberalism in the world during the heat of ww2)
There is a reason for that, the world was overrun by right-wing dictatorships.
 
Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Originally posted by: ntdz

You're an IDIOT if you think communism is conservative. Communism is the exact opposite of Capitalism, and there is no free market and everyone is equal in their misery. It's the ultimate liberal wetdream.

You have no clue do you? Totalitarism has always been a conservative goal, authority is the constant theme, fearing people into the so-called old ways and raping the working class under the guise of personal/fiscal responsibility to control, one the likes of hitler or stalins regimes, total dedication to party and nationalism, liberalism is to be rounded up, gassed or sent to a gulag as opposition undermines the authoritarism. Your a tool is what it is, kinda like a good german before ww2, "conservative values" are nothing less then a false front when it comes to action.

Every dicatorship started under a guise of fooling the people, but what they morph into once the elites have gained power is nothing less then a far-right wet dream.

The only real difference between the USSRs totalitarianism and fascist authoritarism is the fact that corporations were taken over by the state; to become the biggest corporate monopoly of all. The biggest betrayal of socialist values I can think of as far as empowering the working class along with taking their rights away to unionize, both governments did their best to root out all democratic socialists, commies, left wing thinkers, "intellectuals", homosexuals, immigrants etc. to be put into labor camps.

The same ideas the right-wing pundits on the radio cheer on daily, but hey, why be afraid of being a right-wing fascist? What are you? Un-PC? How dare you! You guys have a long history, and no liberal can tell you different, I mean, you all know how to deal with those liberal "traitors" right?

That is until you have to be smacked down again by the free "liberal" world. (funny how america was desribed as the last bastion of liberalism in the world during the heat of ww2)
There is a reason for that, the world was overrun by right-wing dictatorships.

Wow :Q
 
Originally posted by: ntdz
...
You're an IDIOT if you think communism is conservative. Communism is the exact opposite of Capitalism, and there is no free market and everyone is equal in their misery. It's the ultimate liberal wetdream.

Read the article, chief. You are doing exactly what the author suggested, confusing socialism (the economic system) with communism (the political system). You are right, socialism and capitalism are exact opposites on the economic scale, but we're not talking economics...we're talking politics.

And this is really a side point, but I don't think the terms conservative and capitalist can be used any more interchangably than communism and socialism. Modern conservatives are NOT free market people, they are pro-business. There is a HUGE difference. Just as an example, modern conservatives oppose price controls on oil...that's free market. But they also are in favor of giving large handouts to oil companies...that is NOT free market at all.

Edit: This didn't seem to be mentioned in the article (although I might have missed it), but IMHO, the biggest example of how modern conservatives are a lot like communists is their methods of appealing to the common man fighting perceived "elites". The whole "vox populi" thing is very important to the modern conservative movement, and their message is very much one of the "average American" fighting against elite forces that are taking his country away from him.
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Modern conservatives are NOT free market people, they are pro-business.

There is a HUGE difference.

Just as an example, modern conservatives oppose price controls on oil...that's free market.

But they also are in favor of giving large handouts to oil companies...that is NOT free market at all.

You're making me cry.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Modern conservatives are NOT free market people, they are pro-business.

There is a HUGE difference.

Just as an example, modern conservatives oppose price controls on oil...that's free market.

But they also are in favor of giving large handouts to oil companies...that is NOT free market at all.

You're making me cry.

???

I'm not sure I get your point, could you elaborate?
 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Modern conservatives are NOT free market people, they are pro-business.

There is a HUGE difference.

Just as an example, modern conservatives oppose price controls on oil...that's free market.

But they also are in favor of giving large handouts to oil companies...that is NOT free market at all.

You're making me cry.

???

I'm not sure I get your point, could you elaborate?

I've been saying that for years and all I get is that I'm FOS Troll.

Let's see if they call you the same thing.
 
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Modern conservatives are NOT free market people, they are pro-business.

There is a HUGE difference.

Just as an example, modern conservatives oppose price controls on oil...that's free market.

But they also are in favor of giving large handouts to oil companies...that is NOT free market at all.

You're making me cry.

???

I'm not sure I get your point, could you elaborate?

I've been saying that for years and all I get is that I'm FOS Troll.

Let's see if they call you the same thing.

I doubt it...people don't call you a troll because you say things like that, it's the WAY you say things that makes people say that. I firmly believe that no matter what your particular viewpoint, you can either come off like a reasonable person or a batshit loonie bin. I happen to disagree with a lot of the conservatives on here on many issues, but I respect many of them (like CycloWizard) and don't have even the slightest bit of respect for others (like zendari). It's not their positions, it's how they present them that makes all the difference.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Too many seem fixated on the "illegal" part of Illegal Immigrant. Along the same lines as "drugs are bad because they are illegal!" arguement. Like I said in another thread on the same subject, I think 90% of those complaing about "illegal immigrants" would stop complaining if amnesty(making illegals legal) were granted. They simply would no longer have a reason to be riled up about it.

The next time anyone gets worked up about the reported 12 million "illegals" consider the size of that number for a moment. That's a lot of people, doing a lot of Jobs, buying a lot of stuff, renting a lot of Homes. Also consider that there's no way you could deport them even if you wanted to, they are simply too numerous. Consider that the SS problem is due to a Demographic problem and these 12 million fit into the demographic where low numbers are a major factor in that problem. Consider all that and also that all the arguements of "they don't pay Taxes" and "they use up our services for free" would instantly vanish by granting them amnesty. Amnesty is a win-win situation.

That's why those ILLEGALS produce a net loss for the US economy.

Why don't we make everything legal. That way crime doesn't exist anymore and would have no need for law enforcement or jails.

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Modern conservatives are NOT free market people, they are pro-business.

There is a HUGE difference.

Just as an example, modern conservatives oppose price controls on oil...that's free market.

But they also are in favor of giving large handouts to oil companies...that is NOT free market at all.

You're making me cry.

???

I'm not sure I get your point, could you elaborate?

I've been saying that for years and all I get is that I'm FOS Troll.

Let's see if they call you the same thing.

I doubt it...people don't call you a troll because you say things like that, it's the WAY you say things that makes people say that.

I firmly believe that no matter what your particular viewpoint, you can either come off like a reasonable person or a batshit loonie bin. I happen to disagree with a lot of the conservatives on here on many issues, but I respect many of them (like CycloWizard) and don't have even the slightest bit of respect for others (like zendari). It's not their positions, it's how they present them that makes all the difference.

Interesting hyposethesis, just shows I'm no Politician which is what we need at the helm.

Politicians are failing and destroying America.
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Please Americans are fat and dumb and only want to get home and turn on the xtremely potent, addictive, mind-tranquilizing "blue glow" and see what Anna Nicole is up to effectivly rendering them usless as citizens.


Mexicans, illegal ones, are the ones fighting for thier rights like good active aware Americans should be. They will prevail and only 5% of Americans will be the wiser.
Wow such enmity for your own people, were you hugged as a child?

Illegals prevailing? And what alternative reality are you living in, Steeplerot's Bungalow of Bigotry?
 
Originally posted by: Zebo
Originally posted by: blackangst1
I wouldnt have a problem giving amnesty to the illegalsd as long as I can continue to pay them $3/hr under the table with no benefits 😀

Why so you can continue to drive wages down of real Americans? I was reading an very respected MIT economists article about this recently and he said in a nut-shell American workers would earn as much as 8% more if it weren't for the tsunami of undocumented Mexicans. Simple supply (laborers) and demand (available jobs) should tell you this.


The worst part is it's affecting everyone. It seems when an illegal takes that former factory job which used to pay $19 an hour and now pays $9, Jonny says no way Jose. Local Jonny sees that and goes to college and now you have way more college grads (supply) competing for the professional jobs (demand) which enables employers to pay less than ever.
You must have slept through Econ101. An increase in education across the board (i.e. white collar) raises the nation's standard of living vice being stuck in a lower paying, less skilled blue collar job. It matters not that Jonny is being paid 3% less than during the tech boom because Jonny just increased his overall future income by 3000% by choosing to get an education and work a white vs blue collar job. Also, you must have missed the part where supply will adapt to demand in the white collar industry. For example, if the Information Security sector is oversaturated, why the hell would Jonny do that when he can become a DBA which is currently in demand (theoretically)? Your explanation does not take that into account, it's flawed.

 
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: sandorski
Make them citizens and they'll pay taxes

Considering their income levels the taxes don't begin to compensate for the government services they consume. If immigration is going to continue to be of the loweset skilled lowest earning power people who send a large portion of their money to Mexico and then take advantage of government services to subsidize their behavior this country will IMPLODE....and much sooner than you think.

My thoughts exactly. And what makes people so sure that just because we make them citizens they will *actually* start paying their taxes? What happens when they don't? Put them in jail for tax evasion? We'll have to uproot the inhabitants of the state of Rhode Island and turn it into a penal colony.
 
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: sandorski
Make them citizens and they'll pay taxes

Considering their income levels the taxes don't begin to compensate for the government services they consume. If immigration is going to continue to be of the loweset skilled lowest earning power people who send a large portion of their money to Mexico and then take advantage of government services to subsidize their behavior this country will IMPLODE....and much sooner than you think.

Bah, stop the drama. Bush is more damaging than these 12 million. Make them citizens, they'll pay taxes, start legit businesses, get College/University educations, and just do what every Immigrant group does, Prosper and you'll benefit too.

If they had the wherewithal, desire, or ability to do those things you mentioned, they wouldn't have had to sneak into this country illegally

 
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: Ronstang
Originally posted by: sandorski
Make them citizens and they'll pay taxes

Considering their income levels the taxes don't begin to compensate for the government services they consume. If immigration is going to continue to be of the loweset skilled lowest earning power people who send a large portion of their money to Mexico and then take advantage of government services to subsidize their behavior this country will IMPLODE....and much sooner than you think.

Bah, stop the drama. Bush is more damaging than these 12 million. Make them citizens, they'll pay taxes, start legit businesses, get College/University educations, and just do what every Immigrant group does, Prosper and you'll benefit too.


You are seriously incorrect.

You have any, you know, FACTS, to back that up? Because every single immigrant group in history started out on the bottom and worked their way up...that's how immigration typically works. Every ethnic group in the US, most likely including the one you're part of, came into this country and did a lot of crap work, and their kids and grandkids are now middle class folks that form the backbone of this country. Is there ANYTHING that suggests Mexicans are somehow different?

Perhaps this is just based on my personal experience, but I figure it's pretty relevant. My grandparents on both sides weren't from this country...they came from a variety of European countries as kids and their parents basically worked low wage jobs cleaning houses and various other low paying jobs that are now done mostly by Mexican immigrants (legal and otherwise). But they worked hard, and my grandparents were a little better off (but not too much). But my grandparents also worked hard, and were able to raise kids who went to college. My grandparents couldn't pay for it, but they made sure that their kids had the education and smarts to make it. And now, my parents are pretty well off and I'm starting off pretty good myself.

Now are you telling me that MY great-grandparents are special, simply because they came from Ireland and Poland and Hungary instead of Mexico? Because I guess I don't see the big difference. And maybe it's just me, but all the protesting of the anti-immigration folks aside, it seems a TEENSY bit racist to say that Mexicans can't do what most of our ancestors did, just because they are from Mexico.

We got the country set up all good how we like it now and they are coming in screwing everything up. This isn't the 18th and 19th century any more. We don't need to tame the wild frontier any more. We don't need droves of people to help settle the unsettled parts of the country any more. America's infrastructure is pretty well set now and it's running at about peak capacity and then some. Live in the here and now. Our ancestors are long dead. My ancestors probably owned slaves for crying out loud! So where are my slaves?! See how it works? That's the past, this is now. . .circumstances change with time.

But you of all people should be outraged by the unmitigated gall of illegals since you have family members who came here as immigrants legally. How do you think your grandparents would have felt if they had waited in line to enter the country legally like good citizens and then missed out on getting a job because some illegal had cut in line to get in the country which put him ahead of them in the hiring line?
 
Back
Top