Comments Posted By MarkJ
Displaying 31 To 40 Of 40 Comments
Rick,
To piggyback on my previous reply to yet another wearisome, pessimistic post of yours, something tells me:
a) Your childhood nickname was "Sunshine."
b) At college beer parties, you were always the first guy to stick a lampshade on your head.
Jesus, Joseph, Mary, and All the Blessed Saints, get a grip, chin up, and get back on your meds.
Furthermore, pray allow me to impart this mportant tit-bit of political advice: "Nothing is ever as good as it looks but, then again, nothing is ever as bad as it looks either."
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 14.09.2007 @ 10:42
BUSH'S IRAQ UNRECOGNIZABLE FROM THE REAL THING
Thanks for that cheerful assessment, Rick. Leave it to you to always find a dark cloud within a silver lining.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 13.09.2007 @ 23:01
ARE WE DAYS AWAY FROM WAR WITH IRAN?
Dear TCinLa,
Tsk, tsk. You have forgotten the Prime Directive for Moonbats: "It is better to remain quiet and think yourself a fool, than to open your mouth...and remove all doubt." It's nice you mention Bush 41's coalition building prior to Desert Storm but, hey, your crowd didn't even want us to spend blood and treasure kicking Saddam out of Kuwait, did they? Hmmmmmmmmmm?
Bush 43 has "failed at everything?" Gee, last time I checked, we haven't had a terrorist attack since, oh say, 11 September 2001; Saddam Hussein and his sadistic rug-rats are still dead; the Taliban is still out of power, and Osama bin Laden (War Be Upon Him) still can't come out of his cave because, the minute he does, he'll immediately move to the front of our "Hellfire Enema Express Line."
Important safety tip, TCinLA: Stringing together parlor Marxist slogans and half-baked, demonstrably-wrong cliches with chewing gum and chicken wire does not an argument make. Come back when you've got a better one.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 25.03.2007 @ 16:53
THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY OF THE OPEN BORDERS CROWD
svenghouli,
It is true that immigrants, such as Indians like yourself, will study hard and work hard to succeed here and that the free market rewards that. And we don't have a problem that I am aware of in this country with Indian criminals or gangs or the other sociopathies associated with the latinos, Hmong, or some other groups. Yet, anyway.
But what you are ignoring is the reality of race and ethnic homogeniety in maintaining a cohesive nation. You hypothesize that if the Irish had been welcomed into society they might not have created problems. But that's not how it works or worked. No people on earth welcomes large numbers of another people, even when they are the same race and speak the same language, like the Irish did. As you point out, many of the Europeans, Australians, and other whites around the world have disdain for the US. This supports my point that it is hard enough to get along with another people even when you share race and language and history. It becomes almost impossible when you had racial and genetic differences as well.
We want to live with and be with their own people. We feel comfortable that way, and that is a good thing, just like feeling comfortable in our own families is natural and a good thing. It's a natural part of life and it is not evil any more than it is evil if I feel an affinity for a neice or nephew. You used code words like "Aryan" and "whites-only country club" that recall the past when whites used segregation laws and even genocide to try to protect their societies from outsiders. It is wrong to use violence against others and there is no way to defend genocide, but those are the things that happen when different peoples find themselves competing for power and control in one nation. Look at the Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, or the muslims and hindus in India, or virtually any other nation on earth where a significant minority group exists. As soon as the minority grows large enough, they want to gain the political power to start to shape the nation in their own image, or at least to ensure that they can live according to their own culture without having to adapt to the majority.
Indians are a tiny minority in this country right now, and the early immigrants of a tiny minority like you (whether you are first-, second- or a later generation) always work hard and assimilate because you feel your lack of standing here, your outsider-ness, and because you come from economically backward areas and have the work ethic you mention. But history suggests that if and when the Indian minority grows to a certain critical size here, they will begin to stop assimilating, begin to insist on their ways and customs being respected, and begin to openly vent the sense of resentment that any minority feels against a majority. Look at the muslims in Europe - the first generation was agreeable and hard-working; their children are not. Look at the hispanics in this country - their numbers grew large enough and now they are no longer the friendly, docile latinos they were 30 years ago. Now they march by the hundred thousand, waving the flag of their ethnic homeland and demanding accomodation to their language and culture.
People need to stay in their own lands and make their own societies better. Learn economic lessons from other countries and apply them in your own land. But the solution to third world economic problems is not for the third world to pick up and move into first world countries.
I have no desire to offend you because you are doubtless a good fellow human being and I wish you well. But you are not my people. Indians did not like it when the British moved in and took over. No people likes that. I will say it again: assimilation is very difficult even when two peoples are of the same race and speak the same language. But when they are of different races it is almost impossible.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 4.05.2006 @ 10:12
John,
In terms of causing a great deal of damage with a sneak attack, yes, I suppose you could say Bin Laden had an effective strategy. Which so far has worked exactly once. There hasn't been another 9/11 here since. And while he cost us a lot of money, he also woke us up to his threat. Well, some of us anyway.
The fact is that Bin Laden and his muslim fanatics will never have anything but two tools at his disposal, at least in the forseeable future: terrorism and demographic invasion through immigration and high birthrates. The first option may work to force us out of the Middle East, but terrorism is not going to allow him to conquer the world. The second option, if it had been pursued quietly, could have (and still might). Instead, muslims and Mexicans seem to be doing their utmost to antagonize and stir up hatred of themselves in their Western host countries. That's just stupid.
Our opinions of the Iraq war differ. I think our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq was unanticipated by Bin Laden, who thought we were too weak and soft to actually attack those regimes. I think we've killed a lot of his people and disrupted his operations and that's why in nearly five years he has not managed another attack in the US. Ultimately we will have to leave because we can't fix Iraq or any muslim society. But I think the probability that his goal was to goad us into attacking and deposing his host regime in Afghanistan and setting up a democracy in Iraq is close to zero. Remember how he and the Taliban denied having anything to do with 9/11 until the video was captured of him bragging about it? If his goal had been to lure us into attacking him there he would have claimed responsibility from the beginning.
And it's no great shakes to pull of one major successful sneak attack. The Japanese did it at Pearl Harbor and look where it got them. A good strategist chooses a path that leads to victory, not just a quick flashy initial success that wakes up and infuriates an enemy that is too large for you to defeat.
As for us being brilliant, I didn't say that, did I? Half of us think the thing to do is to "understand" them, hold more U.N. conferences, send more of our money to their third world ratholes, and basically surrender. So I would not say we were brilliant. Just that they are stupid for arousing our ire pointlessly.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 3.05.2006 @ 21:02
dumbcisco,
I very much wish we had a sensible immigration policy so that we could open the door and extend a warm welcome to people like yourself. From what I have seen in Europe I expect that a time will come within twenty years, perhaps within a decade, when masses of native Europeans will be looking for a safe place to move - just as white South Africans are now. Russia doesn't seem to be a place with much going for it, which essentially leaves Australia and the U.S. or Canada. Because Australia and Canada are more firmly in the grip of leftist multicultural fantasy, I expect that the US (with our still-significant base of conservative whites) will become the last bastion of European culture at some point. I expect an exponentially growing number of white Westerners will become cognizant of the threat to our existence, but not in time to prevent widespread violence - probably when the next great economic collapse occurs, which is a certainty and might not be far off. I do also expect a time will come when you will again be welcomed here. People are blinded at the moment but we are not fundamentally stupid and when the situation becomes clear enough, attitudes will change (for most, but not all). Thank God that our competitors - the Mexicans and muslims - are such poor strategists. Blowing up skyscrapers and subways and marching by the hundred thousands waving foreign flags is a terrible strategy when your only skill is reproducing with abandon. They should have stayed quiet and polite until their numbers in our countries were larger.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 3.05.2006 @ 18:26
Jeff,
I think you misunderstood me, so let me spell it out for you again.
My point is that the illegality of what the illegals have done is not the real issue. If Mr. Moran's concern is just that some people crossed our borders without permission, if that's all that's bothering him, well that can be remedied by passing an amnesty and declaring our borders open. But that would be like saying that the problem with murderers is that what they are doing is againt the law. The illegality of the murder is not the issue - it is the consequences of the actual act that matter. Likewise, it is not the illegality, per se, of their crossing that matters in this immigration issue; it is the actual consequences of 20 million more Mexicans here, whether they get here legally or not. I may not have made that point clearly enough. Either that, or you're the intellectual moron.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 3.05.2006 @ 13:04
I have a question for you, based on your position that what bothers you about this situation is that our laws aren't being respected.
Suppose we began to guard the border so that Al Qaida couldn't get in, but that we allowed in as many Mexicans and Latin Americans as wanted to come - with the provision that they "want to be part of this grand experiment." And I assume you wouldn't limit it to just latinos, but to Africans, Asians, indeed anyone anywhere who wasn't hostile to the USA and was willing to "be part of the grand experiment", whatever that means.
Would that be ok with you? Would it really not bother you if we had 40 or 50 million third-world immigrants a year coming here? Or even just five or ten million?
I think if we are honest we will admit that the issue is not the legality of the situation, because resolving that is easy - just legalize them and largely eliminate the immigration restrictions. Then legality is no longer an issue. The real question is, do we want an alien people coming to our country at all? After all, weren't the concerns of the Know-Nothing party legitimate? Didn't the massive influx of Irish change the face of their society? Didn't the Irish seize a virtual monopoly of political power? Wasn't there in fact a great deal of inter-ethnic strife for many, many years? And that was strife between people of the same race who spoke the same language and had the same basic religion. It is very, very difficult to assimilate people of different races, religions, and languages. Blacks have still not assimilated after four hundred years and show no signs of assmilitating - and have no desire to assimilate into the white population, nor should they be expected to.
I would summarize my position on immigration as follows:
(a) We don't need immigration. We have enough people, and when we allow a quality person to emigrate here, we rob their homeland of a quality person. Labor shortages resolve themselves through market mechanisms - automation, for example. We no longer have a vast continent to settle quickly and lay claim to.
(b) If we did need immigration, the only people we should allow in are those who are highly skilled, educated, speak our language, are financially stable, are committed to becoming completely American (not a hyphenated American) and of the same ethnic background of the historic majority of the population - i.e., white. (Because assimilation is tough enough without adding racial conflict into it.)
The whole "we're only objecting to illegal immigrants because they're coming here illegally" argument is disingenuous. It's not about legality. It's about the unsuitability of 20 million Mexicans to our society. They have their own country - they should stay there and fix it.
You can call that ungenerous if you want, but it is not our responsibility to fix Mexico's problems any more than it is their responsibility to fix ours. You can call that racist if you want, or nativist, but the reality is that people feel an afffinity for their own ethnic group just like they do for their own family, and mixing more than one ethnic group in a single nation is almost universally a recipe for strife. Blacks and whites have unsuccessfully been trying to come to terms with one another for 400 years here and the current state of affairs is symbolized by the vast black ghettos in places like Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, Washington, and Philadelphia, places where whites dare not go. It's insane to add yet another incompatible ethnic group to our already unresolved mess.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 3.05.2006 @ 11:40
NOTE TO TOOKIE: SHAKE HANDS WITH THE DEVIL FOR ME
I would like to respond to Mark (the other Mark) with regard to his question: "However, death is death, does it matter who administers it?"
I think a reasonable person can take the moral position that killing except in cases of unavoidable self-defense is always wrong. If you take that position consistently, it is quite reasonable to say that no one should be killed by the state because there is no unavoidable self-defense issue involved. A life sentence in a secure prison should do the job.
But when I search my conscience and my understanding of life and what is moral and what the Creator would say on this, my intuition and conscience tells me that it is acceptable to put to death a murderer like Stanley Williams. I believe the world is a harsh school or training ground we come to in order to grow. And when you use your time here to murder other people, and take away their opportunity to learn, you forfeit your moral right to live as well. Death occurs all the time. Nature is quite brutal and remorseless. It is not an easy world. And in my opinion, it is a just and moral thing to put a proven murderer to death in a human way. (I do think you need to maintain a very high standard of proof to justify a death penalty.) And I think it is immoral to allow a murderer to drag out his appeals for 24 years. There is no explanation I can conceive of that would justify 24 years worth of delays. The man has gamed the system to the Nth degree and it is time for him to be removed from this sphere of existence for what he has done.
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 13.12.2005 @ 01:41
Kyle,
Nice try, but no cigar.
So let me get this straight: in your world all people who make important decisions that turn out to be incorrect, but which are based on bum information that was provided to them by credentialed world-class experts, are "liars."
Gee, if that's the case, you'd better go out to your car and peel off your "Nobody died when Clinton lied" bumpersticker. I seem to remember a certain Sudanese pharmaceutical plant and a li'l ol' war in the Balkans....
Comment Posted By MarkJ On 14.11.2005 @ 23:58
