• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Teddy's view on immigration...

Yah it was such a heroic gesture! The damn bridge was about 30' feet in length and the stream feeding some lake was probrably 25' feet. It was such a joke that he said he tried to save her. He only had to reach over and pull her head out of the water. But no he was more concerned to save his hide he didnt even consider her saftey first! HE LET HER DROWN! He then ran away because he was so damn drunk. He went and sobered up and never even called the police or anyone other than his Lawyers (I believe they called the police). And even that was hours later. Some Fracken hero. Who needs villians when we have heros like this! Yah that was the spin at first until people started to get the facts. Then it took every ounce of influence to keep that piece of shit out of jail! He also lost his bid for the Presidency because of what happend. He really should have lost his freedom.
 
Doc said:
I vaugely remember that ole Ted was even made out to be a hero at the time. I was in catholic school then so my info might have been swayed.
But I remember them making a big deal about his super human effort to swim to the shore then back trying to save Mary-Jo K.

I actually had to do a 35 page paper on that issue when I was in college. It was in a class called C&T (Cultures & Traditions) that was required of all sophomores where Bob and I went. I'm sure Bob will recall that class and miss it like hell if he reads this post. :yum: Anyhoo, that was back in the days that I had more liberal leanings than conservative. Even so, I found the factual evidence pretty disturbing. As a matter of fact, you can sort of say that the ole drunkard Kennedy opened my eyes to the Democrat political machine and began my move to be more towards the conservative side of the scales.

Gees, I was just thinking, that was back in the days where we did not have word processing. All of my reports were hand written, marked up and edited, and hand written countless of additional times. Only then did I get out my IBM Selectric Composer typewriter and began typing away. Some people called a "crazy ball" typewriter because of the ball type of gizmo it used for impact. Hmm, I can't believe I don't recall how much I paid for that thing. It seems like it took a good part of my summer job income to pay for that piece of cutting edge technology. :thumb: I do know that it was so expensive that I still have it to this day. Anybody in the market? :D Mine is that pretty blue color with the matching cover.
 
Dargo said:
Mine is that pretty blue color with the matching cover.
I have one of those too. Mine is also blue.

I can tell you that I became a true conservative long before college. But the liberal professors pretty much cemented my beliefs and made me far more outspoken.

I do recall my first foray into the East Bloc nations of Poland and Czeckoslovakia back when the cold war was still raging on and before the Berlin wall came down. We went over to visit relatives. We stayed in the best/most expensive hotels in each city we visited and each one of them was a f...ing dump by "Western" standards, with crumbling facades, etc. Most were new, built within a decade of our visit. There was no pride in workmanship, the was not any civic pride, there was mostly quiet complaining and fear (real fear) of the government. I recall that everywhere we went we were the only children in any of the restaurants. Even the wealthy communists could not afford to take their children to the restaurants. And their restaurants, by our standards, were pitiful. It was next to impossible to get anything that remotely resembled a steak. Meat was mostly fatty, with grissel and usually a heavy sauce to hide the taste. Lots of potatoes, carrots, turnips, kohlrabi and cabbage in their dishes. And even in the small towns in rural areas there were machine gun toting guards in the town squares. Along the rural roadways were signs forbidding photographs. There were occasional "checkpoints" where papers were checked and bags were inspected. We learned early on that 2 things are universal and as good as cash with the guards . . . Marlboro Cigarettes and Wrigley Doublemint Gum. To this day I carry both of those to use to smooth the way with border guards to any nation I travel to that requires a visitors visa.
 
I remember using those typewriters...

Bob, your description of Eastern-bloc countries closely resembles what I've seen in Mexico once you get away from the "Americanized" sections...

Anyway, back to one of the Teddy's (your choice)...
 
bczoom said:
I remember using those typewriters...

Bob, your description of Eastern-bloc countries closely resembles what I've seen in Mexico once you get away from the "Americanized" sections...

No Brian, the non-Americanized/non-tourist areas of Mexico are actually better than the East Bloc nations were. In inner Mexico you saw pride in ownership, they don't own much, but what they have they are proud of. And what they have they worked for and they take care of it. There are many structures that are aging beautifully in Mexico. No question there is a huge amount of poverty in Mexico, and that was not seen in East Europe, but the poor in rural Mexico are working to improve themselves. The poor in Eastern Europe were drinking Vodka becaue they had no incentive to improve anything.
 
I stand corrected.

I'm only basing my statements on what few things I did see. I had very little time and interaction. Your description just resembles what I saw.
 
B_Skurka said:
It was next to impossible to get anything that remotely resembled a steak. Meat was mostly fatty, with grissel and usually a heavy sauce to hide the taste. Lots of potatoes, carrots, turnips, kohlrabi and cabbage in their dishes.

That would make me feel right at home ;) Except there's no organ meat there. Actually, we stopped eating the organ meat for fear of toxins.

My IBM typewriter was a hand-me-down from my mom and was a grey electric but not one of those space-age ball ones. It's now sits on top of my PC XT and is used as ballast on the back of the tractor.
 
bczoom said:
I'm only basing my statements on what few things I did see. I had very little time and interaction. Your description just resembles what I saw.

I've only spent a little time in Mexico, but none of it was in any tourist area. I've never been to any of the Mexican resort towns but I've been to north central Mexico and it may be poor and may have plenty of problems but the people there are not 'defeated' and 'oppressed' in the ways I saw under communism.

beds said:
That would make me feel right at home ;) Except there's no organ meat there.
The difference is you eat that by choice and you can eat what you want to eat when you want to eat it. There were vast quality differences in everything there compared to here. Their "best" quality goods would compare favorably with our "generic" black & white lable goods here.

As for choice, I will eat Kizka occasionally (I had some last week) by choice. They eat it out of necessity. For those who don't know, Kizka is a blood & barely sausage made with a few meat scraps tossed in. It is an aquired taste. And the smell is not so good either. In fact the lovely Mrs_B will not even be in the house on the day I cook it and it must be cleaned up before she returns.
 
Dargo said:
I actually had to do a 35 page paper on that issue when I was in college. It was in a class called C&T (Cultures & Traditions) that was required of all sophomores where Bob and I went. I'm sure Bob will recall that class and miss it like hell if he reads this post. :yum: Anyhoo, that was back in the days that I had more liberal leanings than conservative.

It's okay...most of us wise up around 30 (I was ahead of the learning curve here). :thumb:

Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.
-- Winston Churchill
 
The begining of the fall of America.

The Truth about who organised the infiltrator "demonstrations." (BTW- immigrant (illeagal or other wise) infers the wish to assimilate into a country's culture and society.)

(begin Quote from The Free Republic)


[SIZE=+1]MEXICO'S GLASS HOUSE- How the Mexican constitution treats foreigners[/SIZE]
| April 3, 2006 | Michael Waller

How the Mexican constitution treats foreign residents, workers and naturalized citizens

Introduction

Every country has the right to restrict the quality and quantity of foreign immigrants entering or living within its borders. If American policymakers are looking for legal models on which to base new laws restricting immigration and expelling foreign lawbreakers, they have a handy guide: the Mexican constitution.[1]

Adopted in 1917, the constitution of the United Mexican States borrows heavily from American constitutional and legal principles. It combines those principles with a strong sense nationalism, cultural self-identity, paternalism, and state power. Mexico's constitution contains many provisions to protect the country from foreigners, including foreigners legally resident in the country and even foreign-born people who have become naturalized Mexican citizens. The Mexican constitution segregates immigrants and naturalized citizens from native-born citizens by denying immigrants basic human rights that Mexican immigrants enjoy in the United States.

By making increasing demands that the U.S. not enforce its immigration laws and, indeed, that it liberalize them, Mexico is throwing stones within its own glass house. This paper, the first of a short series on Mexican immigration double standards, examines the Mexican constitution's protections against immigrants, and concludes with some questions about U.S. policy.

Summary

In brief, the Mexican Constitution states that:

- Immigrants and foreign visitors are banned from public political discourse.
- Immigrants and foreigners are denied certain basic property rights.
- Immigrants are denied equal employment rights.
- Immigrants and naturalized citizens will never be treated as real Mexican citizens.
- Immigrants and naturalized citizens are not to be trusted in public service.
- Immigrants and naturalized citizens may never become members of the clergy.
- Private citizens may make citizens arrests of lawbreakers (i.e., illegal immigrants) and hand them to the authorities.
- Immigrants may be expelled from Mexico for any reason and without due process.


The Mexican constitution: Unfriendly to immigrants

The Mexican constitution expressly forbids non-citizens to participate in the country's political life. Non-citizens are forbidden to participate in demonstrations or express opinions in public about domestic politics. Article 9 states, "only citizens of the Republic may do so to take part in the political affairs of the country." Article 33 is unambiguous: "Foreigners may not in any way participate in the political affairs of the country."





The Mexican constitution denies fundamental property rights to foreigners. If foreigners wish to have certain property rights, they must renounce the protection of their own governments or risk confiscation. Foreigners are forbidden to own land in Mexico within 100 kilometers of land borders or within 50 kilometers of the coast. Article 27 states,
"Only Mexicans by birth or naturalization and Mexican companies have the right to acquire ownership of lands, waters, and their appurtenances, or to obtain concessions for the exploitation of mines or of waters. The State may grant the same right to foreigners, provided they agree before the Ministry of Foreign Relations to consider themselves as nationals in respect to such property, and bind themselves not to invoke the protection of their governments in matters relating thereunto; under penalty, in case of noncompliance with this agreement, of forfeiture of the property acquired to the Nation. Under no circumstances may foreigners acquire direct ownership of lands or waters within a zone of one hundred kilometers along the frontiers and of fifty kilometers along the shores of the country." (Emphasis added)




The Mexican constitution denies equal employment rights to immigrants, even legal ones, in the public sector. Article 32: "Mexicans shall have priority over foreigners under equality of circumstances for all classes of concessions and for all employment, positions, or commissions of the Government in which the status of citizenship is not indispensable. In time of peace no foreigner can serve in the Army nor in the police or public security forces."

The Mexican constitution guarantees that immigrants will never be treated as real Mexican citizens, even if they are legally naturalized. Article 32 bans foreigners, immigrants, and even naturalized citizens of Mexico from serving as military officers, Mexican-flagged ship and airline crew, and chiefs of seaports and airports:

"In order to belong to the National Navy or the Air Force, and to discharge any office or commission, it is required to be a Mexican by birth. This same status is indispensable for captains, pilots, masters, engineers, mechanics, and in general, for all personnel of the crew of any vessel or airship protected by the Mexican merchant flag or insignia. It is also necessary to be Mexican by birth to discharge the position of captain of the port and all services of practique and airport commandant, as well as all functions of customs agent in the Republic."

An immigrant who becomes a naturalized Mexican citizen can be stripped of his Mexican citizenship if he lives again in the country of his origin for more than five years, under Article 37. Mexican-born citizens risk no such loss.

Foreign-born, naturalized Mexican citizens may not become federal lawmakers (Article 55), cabinet secretaries (Article 91) or supreme court justices (Article 95).

The president of Mexico, like the president of the United States, constitutionally must be a citizen by birth, but Article 82 of the Mexican constitution mandates that the president's parents also be
Mexican-born citizens, thus according secondary status to Mexican-born citizens born of immigrants.

The Mexican constitution forbids immigrants and naturalized citizens to become members of the clergy. Article 130 says, "To practice the ministry of any denomination in the United Mexican States it is necessary to be a Mexican by birth."

The Mexican constitution singles out "undesirable aliens." Article 11 guarantees federal protection against "undesirable aliens resident in the country."

The Mexican constitution provides the right of private individuals to make citizen's arrests. Article 16 states, "in cases of flagrante delicto, any person may arrest the offender and his accomplices, turning them over without delay to the nearest authorities." Therefore, the Mexican constitution appears to grant Mexican citizens the right to arrest illegal aliens and hand them over to police for prosecution.

The Mexican constitution states that foreigners may be expelled for any reason and without due process. According to Article 33, "the Federal Executive shall have the exclusive power to compel any foreigner whose remaining he may deem inexpedient to abandon the national territory immediately and without the necessity of previous legal action."

Notional policy options

Mexico and the United States have much to learn from one another's laws and practices on immigration and naturalization. A study of the immigration and citizenship portions of the Mexican constitution leads to a search for new policy options to find a fair and equitable solution to the immigration problem in the United States.

Two contrary options would require reciprocity, while doing the utmost to harmonize U.S.-Mexican relations:


1. Mexico should amend its constitution to guarantee immigrants to Mexico the same rights it demands the United States give to immigrants from Mexico; or
2. The United States should impose the same restrictions on Mexican immigrants that Mexico imposes on American immigrants.






These options are only notional, of course. They are intended only to help push the immigration debate in a more sensible direction. They simply illustrate the hypocrisy of the Mexican government's current immigration demands on the United States - as well as the emptiness of most Democrat and Republican proposals for immigration reform.

Mexico certainly has every right to control who enters its borders, and to expel foreigners who break its laws. The Mexican constitution is designed to give the strongest protections possible to the country's national security. Mexico's internal immigration policy is Mexico's business.
However, since Mexican political leaders from the ruling party and the opposition have been demanding that the United States ignore, alter or abolish its own immigration laws, they have opened their own internal affairs to American scrutiny. The time has come to examine Mexico's own glass house.


(end Quote)

Sorry for the long post, but I thought this was a very powerful piece of information that everyone taking part in this debate should know. Just my opinion.
 
Junkman said:
If all of you people are so smart and know all the answers, then how come you are not politicians running the country, state, county or town governments????? Seems that on this site, we have some of the most opinionated or intelligent people who have all the answers to all the worlds problems, but don't seem to put any of their great wealth of knowledge and problem resolutions into play in the political arena..... :whistle: :whistle:


Junk will be fortifiying our coffers with his money for our run at office. They say 75 mill for a primary, more for the real job............make my check out to me please, I will see that I retire (get elected to nothing) with it just fine.
 
Ricochet said:
Typical Clinton hypocrisy in action…her husband taught her well. :rolleyes:


Actually, she is smarter than him, which puts them both in trouble, but she taught him.................
 
Ricochet said:
That is much easier said than done when politics are involved. The common American's voice is heard at the ballot box! That's why I exercise my right to vote every chance I get.

What do you do in the political arena? Nothing? If so, that is sort of a lame generalization of us.


I ran for town board back in 96. does that count?
 
Junkman said:
If all of you people are so smart and know all the answers, then how come you are not politicians running the country, state, county or town governments????? Seems that on this site, we have some of the most opinionated or intelligent people who have all the answers to all the worlds problems, but don't seem to put any of their great wealth of knowledge and problem resolutions into play in the political arena..... :whistle: :whistle:

Cause they're probably moding a forum somewhere.............:whistle::whistle:
 
Top