Title says: "Obama Will Let Me Go" ...So says a captured Illegal Alien

Leninst, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist! blah blah blah blah

Do you just throw those words around to make it sound like you know what you're talking about? Because you really don't.

reply to post by wildtimes


Alright, then you admit to believing the theories of Karl Marx are superior. Ok thanks for the disclosure. I am genuinely not surprised that you relate to other Socialist Marxist types here.
I have already given a basic spiritual tenet as to why this thinking is not good for the soul. I could go deeper into it if necessary to get the point across. I already explained that Universal law and the law of karma have much to do with the state of a person's being. Marxism and Socialism do more harm than good in the long run and will never be able to allay the problems of poverty, and in fact I believe that Marxism and Socialism aggravate the problems further by not creating an atmosphere of abundance and prosperity. It seeks only to take from others what they lawfully worked for.
You, as Marxists do, make a rowdy noise about doing humanitarian things, but for a Marxist, the ends justify the means. And the ends are not even completely justified, as everyone has to give up their liberty for a trite bit of comfort.
Socialism and Marxism are nothing but petty dictatorships with greed at the top. For them the State is all powerful and parents have no rights. You heard that journalist declare that children belong to the State didn't you? She means it and she knows what she is saying. It is nothing less than a diabolical Marxist hatred of the family and of the child too. The State's rights trump the families in the Marxist world.
You seem to be signed on to that in every post you make here.
What needs to be realized here is that although the Marxist says he wants to help the poor people of the world, he has an authoritarian need to control everyone around him and force his ideas on everyone else. The Marxist is bent on getting rid of Capitalism. Look around at the things that the people around Obama say.... and the policies they implement. It's all about "social equity". There is going to be no real social equity because as soon as you confiscate someone's private property, you have taken away that which they worked for lawfully. This is why free enterprise is a superior way to abundance. When people work and save, they take care of themselves and family and if something is left over, they can give back to society voluntarily. When it is taken by force, people no longer feel they should work only to have that taken from them. In other words, in Marxism people are rewarded for not working and are punished for working. I know the labor unions talk a good talk but in reality the case is that the more you make the more you are punished. This is reflected in the Progressive income tax system, which is a Marxist Communist system outlined in the Communist Manifesto, if you have every read it.
Shall I continue or will you just throw my post in the trash ?
I can go on telling you why redistribution of wealth in particular and Marxism in general is evil and downright diabolical.

Originally posted by muse7
Leninst, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist! blah blah blah blah

Do you just throw those words around to make it sound like you know what you're talking about?

Because you really don't.

I would expect you to know since you are the self proclaimed Socialist here. Either you don't know what you think you know or you are just mad because someone is pointing out how horrid the reality of it is, or likely you believe the garbage Marxist Leninists spout. They are true ideologists and what they believe in theory is not realistic in practice and brings nothing but bondage.
For the record, I have read enough from Worker's World webpages, and other Socialist and Marxist sites to know that I know what I am talking about, not to mention reading other texts and the Communist Manifesto. Only someone who is desperate to spread disinfo would make the comment you just did. I am very well aware of the Marxist theory that Capitalism exploits workers and this is the reason why Capitalism must be overthrown. Marxists today use the examples of oligarchic and monopolistic Capitalism and not free enterprise. In seeking to overthrow Capitalism, the Marxist thinks he has some right to take from someone and give to another. This becomes an arbitrary thing in government implementation. What gives government the right to say someone else deserves my paycheck more than I do? This is nothing but institutional theft with a pretty sounding idea of humanitarianism attached.
Why didn't the centralized control of the means of production work in the Soviet Union? Because it doesn't work anywhere and cannot because it is a faulty system.

Here is the basis of Marxist thought on production: (unfortunately I have to tell you this because evidently you don't know).

The second flaw in capitalism is its chaotic nature. Whereas the state can control every aspect of socialism from production to distribution, capitalism is controlled by the free market. (Technically, capitalism is known as a market-directed economy and social-ism as a centrally planned economy although in practice most economies are a mixture of both.) In a socialistic system, economic decisions regarding price, production, and consumption are made by central planners affiliated with the government. In a capitalistic system, economic decisions are made by every producer and every consumer—a housewife with a shop-ping list, for example, is an economic planner in a capitalistic system. Marxism stresses this difference, claiming that only a planned economy can truly discover the best methods of production and distribution. Marxists believe that capitalist economies thrive on crises that tend to stimulate them. Marx believed this reliance on crises would create economic havoc in the long run, and therefore advocated that a planned community replace such a spontaneous, erratic, freewheeling system.

www.allaboutworldview.org...

I can assure you that the people in the WH today are trying to implement centralized planning as fast as they possibly can. Never mind that their policies are bringing more chaos and poverty and suffering for which they will give their Marxist solutions.

Originally posted by muse7
Leninst, Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Fascist! blah blah blah blah

Do you just throw those words around to make it sound like you know what you're talking about?

Because you really don't.

I would love to hear your version. edit: drumming my fingers waiting for your words of wisdom.
Cmon let's hear it.

I don't remember using the word Fascist in this discussion, but it is just a variant of Socialism.

reply to post by muse7


Need I go on with my discourse?

Although Marx and Engels never put forward a unified presentation of the theory of the state, their conception of the state is a fundamental aspect of their outlook, and of what has since come to be called Marxism. In fact, theories of the state consti tute critical facets of all totalitarian credos, not just the Marxian. After all, a given ideology may be overwhelmingly totalitarian in underlying logic, but if it lacks a focus on using the state as the means of transforming society—that is, of imposing its ideas—its totalitarianism will remain implicit. It is the same with Marxism. While Marxism contains many propositions that imply totalitarianism, it is Marx and Engels' view of the state that renders their theory totalitarian in practice. This is mos t evident in their argument that the state, in the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat, is the chief weapon in the struggle to establish communism.

Unfortunately, the totalitarian nature of the Marxist view of the state is not so easily discerned. A glance at Marxist theory, and the practice of Marxist organizations, will reveal what appears to be a paradox. On the one hand, Marx and Engels and th eir followers claim to be vigorous opponents of the state, and insist that one of their most fundamental goals is the abolition of that institution. On the other hand, the vast majority of Marxist organizations have been, and continue to be, militant advo cates of the drastic extension of the role of the state in society. When they've come to power through revolutions or military conquest, Marxists have created societies that have been almost totally dominated by states. Indeed, these states' power has bee n among the greatest in history. Even the wing of the Marxist movement that no longer aims at revolution, the social-democratic, promotes the systemic expansion of the role of the state in capitalist society.

www.spunk.org...


According to Progressive Marxist theory and the dictates of Obamanomics, I must give up the rewards of my own work because illegals who had such a rough time in other countries deserve it.

That sums up Marxist redistribution theory in one sentence.

Since Engels co wrote the Communist Manifesto, and the Order of Skull and Bones imported Hegelian dialectical materialism from Germany, I think this statement is entirely relevant

"By way of exception, however, periods occur in which the warring classes balance each other so nearly that the state power, as ostensible mediator, acquires, for the moment, a certain degree of independence of both. Such was the absolute monarchy of t he seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which held the balance between the nobility and the class of burghers; such was the Bonapartism of the First, and still more of the Second French Empire, which played off the proletariat against the bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie against the proletariat." (Engels. Origin, pp. 283-4.)

and this

8. "(T)he executive of the modern state is essentially a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie." (Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, International Publishers, 1948, p. 11.)

Originally posted by 727Sky
My grandfather was born in Mexico and my mother is 1st generation American. Our family came here legally and, once here, English became our language because, as my grandfather told his family, we are in America and we WILL speak in the language of our new homeland.

Your grandfather is a sellout to his heritage.

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth

Originally posted by 727Sky
My grandfather was born in Mexico and my mother is 1st generation American. Our family came here legally and, once here, English became our language because, as my grandfather told his family, we are in America and we WILL speak in the language of our new homeland.

Your grandfather is a sellout to his heritage.

Matt Gulick · Top Commenter QUOTE:

Reading comprehension was/is not your strong point I suppose; That was a quote from one of the guys who made a comment at the web sight. radio.woai.com...

Not my words but words from Matt Gulick; so if you believe him a sell out go back to the web sight (or visit for the first time it appears) and see what else he posted and leave your comment; sure he and others would enjoy hearing from your well informed opinions.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

Shall I continue or will you just throw my post in the trash ?
I can go on telling you why redistribution of wealth in particular and Marxism in general is evil and downright diabolical.

I want you to tell me if you've read Plato. Specifically 'The Republic.'
I presume the answer is no. So, until you have, we're finished talking. Because if you have NOT read Plato's 'Republic', you truly do NOT KNOW what it is you are promoting here.

You post is pretty much trash.

But while I was outside reviewing our 'exchange' here, I wondered if you were going to answer the questions about how you yourself happen to be here. I see you are not.

I doubt you read my earlier post that I, too, am a daughter of the Pilgrims, the Ellis Island immigrants, the Revolutionaries. Why is it, then, that I am a secular humanist, and you are a Republican immigrant hater?

I was wondering if you have any Irish blood, and if you've ever watched the movie "Far and Away."

I was thinking about how my Irish g-g-grandmother came here from Ireland....because of the potato famine and the English Imperial tyranny that you still support. And, I was also wondering,

if I asked you if we should TAKE DOWN THE STATUE OF LIBERTY, what would you say? Would that make you happy??
Do you know what it stands for? "Give me your tired, your poor, your hungry."

I bet if it came to a vote, you would take it down.
Sorry state of affairs in this country.
Pathetic.

reply to post by alienmma

What the hell is wrong with you people?

idk, what's wrong with you ?

Such as corporations ruling our lives, police brutally arresting people on the streets, our genes being patented by CEOs

are you responding to the correct thread ?
this one is about illegal immigrants, not corps or cops or CEOs

ah so, after your nonsensical rant, you AGREE

Illegal immigrants should have to come in a legal way

interesting

how can the 'good ppl of the USA' be immigrants when it's convenient for the argument and not when it conflicts with your point ?

oh and btw, in the "land of the free and liberty" ... why would you expect us to put "liberty" last ??

Embrace your fellow man, help your fellow man

agreed.

I bet we'd be out of all of these problems

history says that is a bet only a fool would accept.

how can anyone "choose" liberty over another person ?
without "liberty", one cannot 'embrace and help his fellow man' ... see any oppressed country for examples. (including the US)

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus

I have already given a basic spiritual tenet as to why this thinking is not good for the soul. I could go deeper into it if necessary to get the point across. I already explained that Universal law and the law of karma have much to do with the state of a person's being.

I have not read that post....but I'm betting that you're saying that the poor people are 'paying off bad karma' and deserve what they've been subjected to.

Your 'spiritual tenet' is mistaken. The only thing that is good for the soul is compassion, empathy, and selflessness.

Your behavior in these forums alone would karmically mean that you will next time be born a crippled, starving pauper who no one gives a damn about!

Have you ever thought of that?

What if we found out reincarnation was REAL, indisputably.....and that you DON'T get to pick your next 'life lesson', but you are randomly reborn into some 3rd world poverty-stricken place of horror and torment? Hmmm? What then?

Well, the way things are now, people would say, "Meh, she must have had bad karma, let her suffer." And that's okay with you?
For crying out loud!! I think your cheese has slid off your cracker, Ms Entitled.

And what if it turns out the we DO choose our 'next life lesson'? Seems to me that you would still wind up living the life of a crippled, starving victim of 3rd world atrocities. Because you don't exhibit a shred of humanity, justice, compassion, empathy or understanding. None.

Nada. Zip. Just self-righteous entitlement and arrogance.

Originally posted by ThisToiletEarth

Originally posted by 727Sky
My grandfather was born in Mexico and my mother is 1st generation American. Our family came here legally and, once here, English became our language because, as my grandfather told his family, we are in America and we WILL speak in the language of our new homeland.

Your grandfather is a sellout to his heritage.

so, if that's your description of a legal immigrant, how do you view the illegal immigrant and the abandonment of their heritage ??

seriously, if 'heritage' were so darn important, why didn't they stay and foster their heritage into something worthy of their 'contributions' ??

Originally posted by jam321

U.S. Will Look To Mexico For Immigrants Within A Decade Due To Labor Shortage, Expert Says

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I find that laughable given that their is a massive load of unemployed whites in the USA trying to find work.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by malchir

 

Actually, in case any of you are interested, the term "illegal aliens" is considered derogatory. Their advocates prefer "undocumented residents."

Yeah, yeah....I know, it is what it is. But there's no need to use the i-word. It's like using the n-word. Or the w-word (wetbacks). Just try to be more empathetic, people.

They are NOT undocumented immigrants. They have documents it's just that they are fraudulent. They have come here 'illegally'. They break the law getting here, steal identities or let passports expire etc, still illegal. I'm sure our bank robbers would prefer to be known as 'financially challenged', but that's not going to happen.

reply to post by Night Star

They have documents it's just that they are fraudulent.

Fully aware of that, Night Star.
The fact is that those 'fraudulent' documents can be had for a few measly bucks, and that corporations accept them and pretend they don't notice.

Again, it's the system that's to blame. Not the victims of oppression, poverty, exploitation and desperation.

reply to post by Honor93


Here you go:
www.alternet.org...

What is Progressive?
A young person attempts to define the meaning of progressivism today.
July 25, 2005 |
Progressivism, like many important concepts, is many things to many people. Nevertheless, it has its own history, its own culture, and its own politics - all wrapped into a potent package that is making its comeback in the political discourse of this great country. The Campus Progress conference is just the latest manifestation of a political movement that is already changing America's political landscape for the better.

So what the heck is "progressive"?

Are you paying attention yet?

Those called 'progressives' of the late 19th and early 20th century, including such figures as presidents Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, were renowned for checking the rise of corporate power and abuses and expanding democratic rights domestically. Later, leaders who followed the progressive line on foreign policy created an American nation that was an international leader in an economic, military, and moral sense.

Do some more research. This is just a thing I found by a google search.

And here's a wiki thingy about it:

American progressives tend to advocate progressive taxation and oppose what they describe as the growing and negative influence of large corporations. Progressives are typically in agreement on an international scale with left-liberalism in that they support organized labor and trade unions, they usually wish to introduce a living wage, and they often support the creation of a universal health care system.

In the United States, liberals and progressives are often conflated, and in general are the primary voters of the Democratic Party which has a "large tent" policy, combining similar if not congruent ideologies into large voting blocs.

Many progressives also support the Green Party or local parties such as the Vermont Progressive Party. In Canada, liberals usually support the national Liberal Party while progressives usually support the New Democratic Party, which traditionally has had provincial electoral success in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, and since the recent federal election, in Quebec.

Read this.

I'm going to watch Bob's Burgers now, and wonder what is wrong with you people.

Help your fellow man? How is it helping when an illegal takes a job away from a citizen and that citizen can't afford to care for his own family? How about we first help that poor citizen who has to choose between food and life saving medicines? How about we help the poor people living in a tent in the coldest months of the year?

I think the resentment here comes because foreigners who break our laws to get and stay here, are being placed above American citizens. How anyone can't see and understand that is beyond me. Illegals are catered to and have all their needs met while a citizen is not? Sorry, but there's something seriously wrong here.

As for Native Americans, the tribes fought amongst themselves for food and land. One of my ancestor's tribes were almost completely wiped out by another tribe, not the white men. In any case, this is here and now and we have laws and those laws need to be enforced. If I break a law, I pay the consequences. If an illegal breaks the law, they get rewarded?

www.latimes.com...

Another article from the L.A. times.

Supporters say that higher levels of legal immigration would meet the U.S. need for certain kinds of workers. Increased legal migration also would reduce most of the incentive for illegal border crossings, backers of the plan say, and would allow border agents to focus on smugglers and people with violent criminal records.

Opponents such as Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who has long opposed measures to increase immigration levels, say new workers would depress wages and crowd out Americans looking for work during a time of persistently high unemployment.

The bill aims to eliminate the current backlog of roughly 4 million people waiting to be reunited with family members in the U.S. The 11 million now in the country without legal authorization would be eligible for citizenship only after that backlog was resolved. Reunification efforts would require boosting the number of visas issued each year. To keep the additional inflow under control, the bill would stop allowing adult siblings of immigrants to qualify, but children and parents would continue to be eligible.

www.latimes.com...

The above is an article about one of the major hang-ups with the new bill finally being resolved between migrant workers and farmers.
QUOTE: "We have a wage and cap agreement," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) told reporters.

Feinstein is not among the eight senators drafting the overall bill, but she has worked to help design a program to provide legal status to the estimated 500,000 foreign farmworkers in the country.

The eight senators overseeing the bill met Wednesday night and signed off on the outline, leaving staffers to work out final details. Senators were optimistic Thursday that a deal was close.

"All that's left is the drafting," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.). END QUOTE:

It will be interesting to see the details of the draft when finally finished.

reply to post by 727Sky


Do you know how much it costs how and how long it takes to come here legally?? I am just curious...

Originally posted by mcdgray129
This thread makes me sick i cant believe people are giving him flags and stars are you guys really that stuck up in America? Really? why would you want to turn anyone one away? an at least the people thats giving flags etc could post an say why instead of hiding...

People in America do not understand the issue, and people outside America understand it even less. They aren't mad people are coming over here illegally, they're mad because they don't have money. They complain that they don't have jobs and they are being outsourced by the immigrants, when that is not the case. But what many Americans don't realize is that there was never enough money to go around to begin with. It's a big game of musical chairs and everybody doesn't get a chair. People who have a chair have a broken one and won't be in it for long. The system is collapsing and nobody knows why so they try to place blame on other people. "This is MY country!!" They shout! They're part of the problem, and part of that problem is that they aren't intelligent enough to know that it isn't their country anymore.

They are completely oblivious to the issue at hand. It's a sad situation.

Illegal=Criminal.

What is not to understand?

Illegal=Criminal.

If it was Legal, it would be called so.

I dont get it.

S&F OP

Originally posted by mcdgray129
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Your post is not even worth giving a real reply to as its clear you made up your mind, "all illegals are criminals" please dont even tell me this is not what you think as its clear from your post it is.....