It's all good. You just hang on a little while in order that we get all the support systems in place, all for you.

Originally Posted by: dfosterf 

So whats this thread about?

As far as getting our country back:

1. We need to have proper immigration policys - ie people without legal green cards and passports need to go whereever they came from. Or Allow a certain amount to stay if they meet a certain criteria and not a criteria based on how much of the US tax dollars they have used up even if they have been here 10 years-20 years etc.
3 years ago I was under immigration policys as a chiropractor here in the UK and had to comply else I would be forced to leave; even thou I brought a skill to this country.

I also know many great british people and europeans that would love to work in the US; but cannot. I do not see why they are not allowed to come to the US and bring a skill and work; meanwhile others which do not bring skills are allowed to come.

As long as people go through the proper immigration I am fine with it; if they dont - they need to leave and we do not need to pay them to leave or pay them to stay in our country or give them the option to never leave.

2. Guns - Guns do not make us safe. "82 people were shot in an 84-hour window in chicago over 4th of july"; I could list numerous cases about gun violence. School shootings etc ... I know many of you hear support people having guns in the US.

I find the shooting and killing news - depressing. Things like this do not happen in britain - we dont have a guy walk into a mc donalds and open fire killing numerous people week after week. If there is some kind of murder its big news and it involves only a very few people.

So less guns. A lot less IMO.

Same reason we dont want every tom dick and harry country to own nuclear weapons.

3. Banking industry - this fixed yet?

4. Health care in the US. First off there needs to be a paradigm shift to pay health care workers to keep people healthy instead of based on what they do - ie procedures and tests.

anyways - tell me whom to vote for next time that has the above values.

Originally Posted by: Dulak 

It's encouraging to see some new blood have the balls and brains to show some interest in politics.

On your #1, as Dakota said, America does benefit from the cheap labor of illegals. He says that like it's a bad thing hahahaha. The current massive influx, though, is perplexing. It reminds me of when Castro suddenly allowed/sent all those Cuban boat people - some sort of an organized effort to disrupt here, especially the unaccompanied kids - which is basically taking advantage of the inherent niceness of Americans. I see the whole thing as an annoyance rather than a big deal.

On your #2, how many of those Chicago gun fights were with LEGAL guns? Damn few, I bet. I refer you to the famous bumper sticker: when guns are outlawed, only the outlaws will have guns. I've never been very enthused about the issue of gun rights, but it's true, the left is more concerned with harrassing the good people who own guns than solving the problem of gun crime - or crime in general.

Your #3: the banking industry is just fine. The Federal Reserve - although hated by many - does a great job of dealing with problems so they have minimal effect on regular people - compare the recent "Great Recession" to the debacle of the Great Depression of the 1930s or the various "Panics" all through the 1800s when regular people really did suffer.

#4: It's been said that Obama and the leftists KNOWINGLY made Obamacare such a clusterfuck that it would eventually result in a single-payer system. Just about everybody is worse of one way or another now because of it. I, even though I am a conservative, would not really be opposed to a single-payer system - provided it did NOT result in higher taxes (yes, that could be done - with debt financing). You're in Britain; You see such a system at work. Tell us, is it good or bad?

As for who to vote for, it's a LOT easier to say who NOT to vote for, and they have the last name Paul - Rand or Ron. Obama has done his damnedest to drag down America, and the good times keep on rollin'. I doubt another leftist would be any worse, but electing just about any of the plethora of conservatives other than the Pauls would bring a step upward in a lot of ways - primarily on the defense/foreign policy/security front, but there seems to be behind the scenes forces preventing even the left from straying too far in the wrong direction in those areas. The Pauls, however, based on their non-interventionist words, would be a serious threat to harm America. If you want a name at this early point, I'd say Paul Ryan.

I have to disagree with the original premise that we, the good people, need to take back America. I say we never lost it.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker 

So whats this thread about?

As far as getting our country back:

1. We need to have proper immigration policys -

2. Guns - Guns do not make us safe. "82 people were shot in an 84-hour window in chicago over 4th of july"; I could list numerous cases about gun violence. School shootings etc ... I know many of you hear support people having guns in the US.

Originally Posted by: Dulak 

1. Immigration. Americans have been bitching about immigrants pretty much since the beginning. IMO, proper immigration policy should be: Do you have a communicable disease? If so, you can't come in until you get rid of it. If not, welcome to America.

2. Guns. Governments have killed far more people with guns than private citizens. By multiple orders of magnitude. The only people who should not be allowed to bear arms are elected officials and government bureaucrats.

3. Health care. Not going there anymore. Anyone who thinks the government can either (i) improve the quality of health care or (ii) reduce its cost is, IMO, delusional. Dealing with my 92-y.o. mother's dementia is enough delusion to deal with.

4. Banks. Historically, banks have been joined at the hip with the state/king/powers-that-be. For awhile, Brits and Americas emphasized a different sort of banking -- the sort where lending decisions were shaped primarily by local needs and localized markets. This was viewed as so important that, for awhile, we even prohibited almost all branch banking. Banks were defined by Main Street, not Wall Street and not Pennsylvania Avenue.
Then came Woodrow Wilson. Keynes. The Federal Reserve System and "monetary policy". And, eventually, banks resumed their historical emphasis -- kings and nations and the powers-that-be. And "corporate" became the word. And after a few generations of this incestuous old-fashioned banking, they're "too big to fail."

Originally Posted by: Wade 

I was bored so I went looking for stuff I hadn't replied to. Yours was at the top of the list, Wade. What else is new hahahaha?

1. You and the Wall Street Journal. I could maybe join you on that. I heard Rush Limbaugh, of all people, waxing on about the amazingly huge amount of vacant land you see as you fly across America. He went on to say that theoretically, you could put the whole world's population with the density of downtown Houston (I was just there on Friday, and it wasn't all that dense) in the land bounded by California, Oregon, and Washington on the west and the Great Plains states. Food and other necessities, I guess that's another matter. My point, Wade, is that your idea - and the seemingly inevitable increase in government benefits dished out - would be an extremely Keynesian situation - testing whether this nation's or any nation's policies so conceived and so dedicated could long endure (apologies to Abe). To be clear, I'm talking about the Wade idea, not the Limbaugh idea - which I'm sure he wasn't even remotely suggesting.

Originally Posted by: texaspackerbacker