Will You Now Reconsider?
- Thread starter NIGHTWATCH
- Start date
- Status
Brett Bellmore
Member
The border issue is certainly negotiable, but I can't see the LP giving up on it's opposition to the war on drugs. It's just too central to the principle that the LP was founded to advance: Essentially, that if you're not harming anybody else, the government should stay out of your face. That's the animating principle of the LP, and if they gave it up, there'd cease to be any reason for the party to exist.
And, frankly, I think it's one issue where the public is actually ahead of the political class, as demonstrated by medical pot initiatives and the like.
And, frankly, I think it's one issue where the public is actually ahead of the political class, as demonstrated by medical pot initiatives and the like.
joab
Member
I made the remark during the Terri Schiavo debacle that we may be witnessing the birth of a serious third party system.
If the Libretarians would just take it seriously and find a real candidate I'll vote for him if not I'll write in for myself
Byron Quick
Moderator In Memoriam
Sorry, you haven't done your research for there have been LP state representatives. Andre Marrou, for one, Alaska. Check out his legislative record.
Ron Paul was a LP presidential candidate a few election cycles back. Suppose he bathes regularly? He runs as a Republican to get elected but listen to him...you don't hardly get more libertarian than he is.
As far as the LP's drug platform goes or border policy; I'm more concerned with their position on the intelligence community. I always heard that in the military that you should never give an order that you know will not be obeyed.
Frankly, I believe that the government is in the same position with many of its laws whose primary focus is increasing government control.
Borders? Open the borders. Just tell them that they'll get the same government checks as everyone else: none. Criminals? Teach the populace to defend themselves against criminals with deadly force and kill them. They'll get the message when the casualty rate gets high enough. Terrorists?
Have the intelligence apparatus to track them. When you get proof that they're terrorists then kill them. Capture them for intelligence purposes if necessary. Release them where they can easily resume their activities. Watch them and when they resume...kill them. Put signs up at the borders that everyone is free here but that this freedom includes the right to starve if you won't work and the right to be killed if you infringe upon the rights of others.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Open borders are rendered impractical by the high level of tax funded government services in this country, combined with our bordering on a third world country. Open the border completely, and you get just too many people coming in to enjoy the services, who don't pay enough taxes to pay their way.
You can't take the fence down around a gated community with a water park paid for by association dues, if it's sitting next to a ghetto.
You can't take the fence down around a gated community with a water park paid for by association dues, if it's sitting next to a ghetto.
NIGHTWATCH
Member
I am frustrated with their border policy as well. It makes little sense in light of terrorism...
I think also that there needs to be a new twist on their pro-drug stance. Rather than legalizing drugs they should work to continue to control these substances but without criminal prosecution for the petty user. Confiscate what a user may have but reserve fines and long jail terms to the dealers. As well as aggressive campaigns to stop the cartels. Guarding our borders is the first step.
One thing I believe strongly is that an historic opportunity has surfaced after the recent actions by the supreme court regarding eminent domain. Across the board people are afraid because the criminal disregard by government and corporate America of our freedoms are reaching a point of intolerance. It is hitting home.
The Constitution Party sounds good, very patriotic but very christian also. Which I agree with but also understand will politically divide. Moral or conservative positions must now take a backseat to individual rights of all shades in order for a third party to succeed. If not than we are back to square one.
If the Libertarian Party fails to make some very decisive changes and does not act now to take advantage of the opportunity they have to be heard, I dont think I will be able to continue to support them. As far as I will be concerned, they will have missed the boat. Getting a candidate into the next presidential debate for the sake of being heard would be a victory but too far off to be decisive.
I think also that there needs to be a new twist on their pro-drug stance. Rather than legalizing drugs they should work to continue to control these substances but without criminal prosecution for the petty user. Confiscate what a user may have but reserve fines and long jail terms to the dealers. As well as aggressive campaigns to stop the cartels. Guarding our borders is the first step.
One thing I believe strongly is that an historic opportunity has surfaced after the recent actions by the supreme court regarding eminent domain. Across the board people are afraid because the criminal disregard by government and corporate America of our freedoms are reaching a point of intolerance. It is hitting home.
The Constitution Party sounds good, very patriotic but very christian also. Which I agree with but also understand will politically divide. Moral or conservative positions must now take a backseat to individual rights of all shades in order for a third party to succeed. If not than we are back to square one.
If the Libertarian Party fails to make some very decisive changes and does not act now to take advantage of the opportunity they have to be heard, I dont think I will be able to continue to support them. As far as I will be concerned, they will have missed the boat. Getting a candidate into the next presidential debate for the sake of being heard would be a victory but too far off to be decisive.
The problem is mostly the people and not necessarily the party. Old people make up the major voting bloc and they have usually voted the same way forever and ever. Not only that but they only fill out one question at the top of the voting card, the Straight-R or Straight-D line. Then they just turn it in. I'm sure many people do this, not just the elderly either. I voted for every Libertarian that was on the ballot and when I looked up the numbers after they lost, well, I was in short company.
Sad thing is the Libertarian party has to spend a great amount of its money gathering signatures and filing legal maneuvers just to even be on that ballot. The two powers that be can certainly agree on one thing: they don't want to share their power with any third parties. They have made it nice and difficult to even consider mounting a challenge.
I can't even imagine the smear campaign that would go on against them if they were ever enough of a threat to be airing TV commercials and running neck-and-neck with the other two parties. "These crazy psycho hippie paranoid druggies want to turn our society into some crazy militia land and get rid of the government and eat babies!"
Sad thing is the Libertarian party has to spend a great amount of its money gathering signatures and filing legal maneuvers just to even be on that ballot. The two powers that be can certainly agree on one thing: they don't want to share their power with any third parties. They have made it nice and difficult to even consider mounting a challenge.
I can't even imagine the smear campaign that would go on against them if they were ever enough of a threat to be airing TV commercials and running neck-and-neck with the other two parties. "These crazy psycho hippie paranoid druggies want to turn our society into some crazy militia land and get rid of the government and eat babies!"
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
Probably not, but I'm still voting Libertarian.
Jim Diver
Member
I will think about voting LP once they drop the drug legilization and open border things....
Till then I vote Constitution Party.
Till then I vote Constitution Party.
rhubarb
Member
I resemble that comment!
Yep, it's time to put a real Texan in the White House: Ron Paul. I wouldn't care if he ran under the Mauve Panther Party, I'd vote for him.
I voted for the first time in the 2000 election - for Harry Browne. I'd never heard of him or the Libertarian Party. I walked into the booth with the intention of voting for Bush and agin Gore. When I saw the list of parties, I thought, "Liberty. That's a good cause." I then went and read about the Libertarians and was happy.
I done it again last year. I ain't never gonna vote for no stinkin Repugnantcrat as long as they are determined to defecate on my Constitution of the United States of America. If that makes me mostly an eccentric nut case, so be it.
Whichever it is, I hope that some party rises to political prominence soon that respects the Constitution and my rights.
chaim
Member
I agree that to be taken seriously the Libertarians have to worry less about the presidency and start small.
What one state rep in Alaska, not exactly a great track record. A few other small 'l' Libertarians, but they had to become Democrats and Republicans to be elected to anything.
I live in central MD, not exactly a poor or small area. The only Libertarian I remember on my ballot was for president and Senate. They need to be running for the small offices and getting a few elected before they'll ever have a chance to put in a US Senator or president, or even before the other parties will see them as enough of a threat to start seriously considering encorporating Libertarian issues into their own platforms.
Still, that said, I did vote Libertarian last time. There was no way I could vote for Bush, I would vote for anyone but Bush. But then, there was Kerry. If there was no other option but Democrat and Republican, Kerry was almost the only person that would cause me to vote for Bush. By voting Libertarian I could vote against Bush without voting for the even more reprehensible Kerry.
NO, NO, NO, NO!
Separate issues have no bearing on the Libertarian Party's success.
Do you think anyone gives a hoot or thinks twice about, say.....the border issue? Do you think anyone contemplates, seriously.....the drug legalization issue-- at least to the point where it is a make or break issue?
Who cares?
The Libertarian Party is doomed to fail because THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. It's that simple.
Democratics and Republicans are PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. They have been the only parties in the last 150 yrs or so that are relevant. They compete with each other in every single race to see who is the most relevant at that particular office at that particular point in time. That element alone makes them what they are to this day.
They compete with each other to gain the peoples' vote. Their competition has fomented an ideology and a set of expectations for each voter to the point where they are the only TWO choices.
And any given "politician" that has an L next to his or her name is likely to be dull and unengaging. I've met them before, and it is wholly disheartening when you are, yourself, a Libertarian. They are genuine and down-to-earth to a fault.
I'm not sure how Ron Paul got into the House, but the LP sure needs to know how and use his success as a template.
I believe it is nothing short of FACT that most of us are Libertarians at heart. The SOLE mission of the Libertarian Party today should be to make us all aware of that.
Separate issues have no bearing on the Libertarian Party's success.
Do you think anyone gives a hoot or thinks twice about, say.....the border issue? Do you think anyone contemplates, seriously.....the drug legalization issue-- at least to the point where it is a make or break issue?
Who cares?
The Libertarian Party is doomed to fail because THEY ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. It's that simple.
Democratics and Republicans are PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS. They have been the only parties in the last 150 yrs or so that are relevant. They compete with each other in every single race to see who is the most relevant at that particular office at that particular point in time. That element alone makes them what they are to this day.
They compete with each other to gain the peoples' vote. Their competition has fomented an ideology and a set of expectations for each voter to the point where they are the only TWO choices.
And any given "politician" that has an L next to his or her name is likely to be dull and unengaging. I've met them before, and it is wholly disheartening when you are, yourself, a Libertarian. They are genuine and down-to-earth to a fault.
I'm not sure how Ron Paul got into the House, but the LP sure needs to know how and use his success as a template.
I believe it is nothing short of FACT that most of us are Libertarians at heart. The SOLE mission of the Libertarian Party today should be to make us all aware of that.
NIGHTWATCH
Member
Republicans were NOT PROFESSIONAL POLITICIANS just prior to the civil war. It was the civil war that actually put this new party on the map. It was a crisis that allowed the entrance of this party to power. Why not the LP?
Being a "professional politician" is the problem not the solution.
Brett Bellmore
Member
Why not the LP? Already told you: The Ds and the Rs have made it illegal.
Not formally, of course, but as a practical matter.
Not formally, of course, but as a practical matter.
No, instead you'll continue to validate someone else's stupidity and evil by voting for the same dirty-words who keep bending us over.
But it's okay. Maybe this election cycle, it'll be different.
Dreck.
pax
Propaganda does not deceive people; it merely helps them to deceive themselves. -- Eric Hoffer
sm
member
If you keep on doing what you have always done- you will keep on getting what you always got.
For a long time now I have NOT thrown away MY vote. I voted MY convictions.
I can look anyone in the eye and say I voted the best I could to uphold Freedoms, fight Tryanny, and defend " against all enemies foreign and domestic".
History is full of folks that voted for someone. After that someone served -the facts of Tearing down Freedoms, being a tool of Tyranny, and whatever else- the numbers of people whom actually cast a vote for said person putting them in office is way different than those numbers of persons that will admit voting for said person.
To thine ownself be true.
Did you vote for whom you did/ do because your family always voted that Party? Pressured by a spouse, employer, union, or co- workers?. Wanted to be with the winning side, mob mentality ,or be in the "in crowd"?.
Did you NOT vote so you could change sides according to whatever makes you look at any given hour on any given day?
Or did you make your own decisions, for your own convictions, studied, researched, informed , to support your beliefs on the definitions of Freedoms, and Tyranny?
For a long time now I have NOT thrown away MY vote. I voted MY convictions.
I can look anyone in the eye and say I voted the best I could to uphold Freedoms, fight Tryanny, and defend " against all enemies foreign and domestic".
History is full of folks that voted for someone. After that someone served -the facts of Tearing down Freedoms, being a tool of Tyranny, and whatever else- the numbers of people whom actually cast a vote for said person putting them in office is way different than those numbers of persons that will admit voting for said person.
To thine ownself be true.
Did you vote for whom you did/ do because your family always voted that Party? Pressured by a spouse, employer, union, or co- workers?. Wanted to be with the winning side, mob mentality ,or be in the "in crowd"?.
Did you NOT vote so you could change sides according to whatever makes you look at any given hour on any given day?
Or did you make your own decisions, for your own convictions, studied, researched, informed , to support your beliefs on the definitions of Freedoms, and Tyranny?
Dan from MI
Member
Lp
The problem is that the top LP vote getting candidate in my state got 136,935 votes, most of which he got because his name is Scotty Boman(similar to former Red Wings coach). That's behind the Constitution Party(US Taxpayers in MI), let alone the Big Two. I'm Republican, but I voted for Scotty Boman as a protest vote since one of the GOP'ers for that office(education boards) was shady. Boman still didn't come close to winning.
I happen to agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy, although I do break with them on abortion(as does Ron Paul), immigration, and legalization of drugs(although the Drug War is a failure). That said, I don't agree with any party or person 100%.
I've never seen an LP candidate knock on doors or run a real campaign. The most I've seen was a few TV or radio ads by either Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne. Even Ross Perot with his billions only got 20% of the vote. Why should I give the LP a chance (outside of a protest vote) when they aren't running successful campaigns? What are they outside of a protest vote? They do not have a lot of acclompishments for 30 years of campaigning. I don't expect much difference from the Constitution Party.
I vote for the best candidate I can get, usually to stop the worst. Bush was the lesser of two evils, and I think we can survive Bush(McCain's another story). Kerry would have made Bill Klinton look like Reagan. I agree with Bush maybe 35-40% of the time. That's better than 0%. I just hope he appoints good judges.
The Republican Party is far from perfect, but it's IMO the best we got, and primaries are the best chance to get good people elected there. The best defenders of the 2nd amendment are republicans, including Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and John Hostettler. The judges who opposed the Eminent Domain ruling were GOP apointees. Renquist, O'Connor(who actually got one right), Scalia, and Thomas.
The Primaries are key. That is our best chance to make a difference, and it doesn't start at the presidential level. It starts at the local levels. The biggest mistake all of us make is concentrating on the feds. Most congresscritters were state reps or local officials at one time or another. The state and local offices are where we need to concentrate most of our time. Then the best ones are more electable as congressmen and have a better chance to win.
The problem is that the top LP vote getting candidate in my state got 136,935 votes, most of which he got because his name is Scotty Boman(similar to former Red Wings coach). That's behind the Constitution Party(US Taxpayers in MI), let alone the Big Two. I'm Republican, but I voted for Scotty Boman as a protest vote since one of the GOP'ers for that office(education boards) was shady. Boman still didn't come close to winning.
I happen to agree with much of the Libertarian philosophy, although I do break with them on abortion(as does Ron Paul), immigration, and legalization of drugs(although the Drug War is a failure). That said, I don't agree with any party or person 100%.
I've never seen an LP candidate knock on doors or run a real campaign. The most I've seen was a few TV or radio ads by either Michael Badnarik or Harry Browne. Even Ross Perot with his billions only got 20% of the vote. Why should I give the LP a chance (outside of a protest vote) when they aren't running successful campaigns? What are they outside of a protest vote? They do not have a lot of acclompishments for 30 years of campaigning. I don't expect much difference from the Constitution Party.
I vote for the best candidate I can get, usually to stop the worst. Bush was the lesser of two evils, and I think we can survive Bush(McCain's another story). Kerry would have made Bill Klinton look like Reagan. I agree with Bush maybe 35-40% of the time. That's better than 0%. I just hope he appoints good judges.
The Republican Party is far from perfect, but it's IMO the best we got, and primaries are the best chance to get good people elected there. The best defenders of the 2nd amendment are republicans, including Ron Paul, Tom Coburn and John Hostettler. The judges who opposed the Eminent Domain ruling were GOP apointees. Renquist, O'Connor(who actually got one right), Scalia, and Thomas.
The Primaries are key. That is our best chance to make a difference, and it doesn't start at the presidential level. It starts at the local levels. The biggest mistake all of us make is concentrating on the feds. Most congresscritters were state reps or local officials at one time or another. The state and local offices are where we need to concentrate most of our time. Then the best ones are more electable as congressmen and have a better chance to win.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
NO.
Changes in the situation, even continued degeneration of liberty, is external to the LP, and has no effect on their viability as an alternative.
The LP remains an unviable alternative, for too many reasons to post here.
GlenJ
Member
After what the GOP is doing to us civil service workers the Libertarian Party has a new voter here.
Big Bad Wolf
Member
Great discussion and right on time because this is something I am wrestling with.
After the passage of the Real ID Act I can honestly say that was the last straw with me supporting the Republicrats. The GOP nowadays are no better then the Dems, my eyes are finally open.
As for the Republicans being the "best and only option" even though they continually bend us over time and time again with liberty robbing bills ask yourself, if Kerry would have been elected what would be different? We were all dead set that he would have passed tons of anti-gun measures but much like under Bush the House has been the only reason we have not seen any anti-gun laws going anywhere and I suspect it would have been the same even with Kerry as President even if he fell back to being a gun grabber. The war? Listen to the debates, neither Bush or Kerry knew what to do with the war, we are stuck there with no signs of it ending anytime soon. The ever increasing bloated expanding Government? Bush's policy on this is an exact mirror of even the most liberal of Democrats..
Getting back to the topic at hand, does the 3rd parties have a chance yet? No.
In the case with the LP as noted here they fail to get grass roots laid on the state level. While they love to tout their 600+ elected offices they hold look at those offices. School Board Officials, Water Board Officials, etc... are not real offices and not any office of consequence. They really need to work on state level legislature seats to move up the chain rather than spend the bank on a worthless and ineffective Presidential Candidate that will have no chance. Work on single state, win some seats in that state and begin to implement your ideals and prove they work, work seriously on a Governor Chair after that then move to the next level which is Federal. Texas, NM, or even AZ would be a good start for this.
Speaking of failed Presidential bids.....
If this is the best candidate you can find, I would seriously examine where your party is going. Dr. Harry Browne and Dr. Ron Paul were rather good candidates and just the people you need to lead the party but Badnarik? I have heard his speeches and he is a rather poor candidate because he is not well rounded. He is great at Constitution issues but absolutely sucks on any other issue. In this last election which saw the most voter turn out ever he failed to even get the amount of votes the Dr. Browne did previously in 2000. An epic swift kick in the butt that should have and I hope brings them back to reality about Presidential bids and questionable sanity candidates.
As for the LP platform, yes the drug legalization and open border issues are the fly in the ointment for many potential voters who would go LP if it weren't for those 2 points. This thread is a great example of that. While if you really examine the LP's platform and ideals concerning these issues it does make sense but the average voter does not see past the glib or lip service any candidate pays during speeches or the debates.
As for wasting your vote, I don't buy into that. The GOP and Dem elected officials sell us out at every turn then waive patriotic images of how they are the true freedom fighters in politics and stand by the oath they take when inaugurated, in other words total and complete hogwash. So long as you vote for these candidates because of the (R) or (D) rather than who is actually better for the job, that is wasting your vote. When you place a vote for the lesser of 2 evils rather than throwing your support to someone who fights for what you believe, that is wasting your vote. When you set your ideals and belief's on how this country should be run aside for more of the same, that is wasting your vote.
The biggest point to 3rd parties is not to win a miracle but rather keep the big 2 in check. If the big parties do not see a decline in their voting base and increase of votes going to the 3rd parties they will never be inclined to change their policies and platform to help bring back the defection vote, it will just be more of the same and we all know how that is going.
So in closing I support the Libertarians even though they have some work to do to even become a thorn in the side of the GOP but it is my hope that if the Libertarians continue to tread water in politics and not progress further that at the very least they can bring the GOP back to the Conservative side of politics, even if it is just a small measure of return because anything is better than the RINO's and neo-cons we have now.
After the passage of the Real ID Act I can honestly say that was the last straw with me supporting the Republicrats. The GOP nowadays are no better then the Dems, my eyes are finally open.
As for the Republicans being the "best and only option" even though they continually bend us over time and time again with liberty robbing bills ask yourself, if Kerry would have been elected what would be different? We were all dead set that he would have passed tons of anti-gun measures but much like under Bush the House has been the only reason we have not seen any anti-gun laws going anywhere and I suspect it would have been the same even with Kerry as President even if he fell back to being a gun grabber. The war? Listen to the debates, neither Bush or Kerry knew what to do with the war, we are stuck there with no signs of it ending anytime soon. The ever increasing bloated expanding Government? Bush's policy on this is an exact mirror of even the most liberal of Democrats..
Getting back to the topic at hand, does the 3rd parties have a chance yet? No.
In the case with the LP as noted here they fail to get grass roots laid on the state level. While they love to tout their 600+ elected offices they hold look at those offices. School Board Officials, Water Board Officials, etc... are not real offices and not any office of consequence. They really need to work on state level legislature seats to move up the chain rather than spend the bank on a worthless and ineffective Presidential Candidate that will have no chance. Work on single state, win some seats in that state and begin to implement your ideals and prove they work, work seriously on a Governor Chair after that then move to the next level which is Federal. Texas, NM, or even AZ would be a good start for this.
Speaking of failed Presidential bids.....
If this is the best candidate you can find, I would seriously examine where your party is going. Dr. Harry Browne and Dr. Ron Paul were rather good candidates and just the people you need to lead the party but Badnarik? I have heard his speeches and he is a rather poor candidate because he is not well rounded. He is great at Constitution issues but absolutely sucks on any other issue. In this last election which saw the most voter turn out ever he failed to even get the amount of votes the Dr. Browne did previously in 2000. An epic swift kick in the butt that should have and I hope brings them back to reality about Presidential bids and questionable sanity candidates.
As for the LP platform, yes the drug legalization and open border issues are the fly in the ointment for many potential voters who would go LP if it weren't for those 2 points. This thread is a great example of that. While if you really examine the LP's platform and ideals concerning these issues it does make sense but the average voter does not see past the glib or lip service any candidate pays during speeches or the debates.
As for wasting your vote, I don't buy into that. The GOP and Dem elected officials sell us out at every turn then waive patriotic images of how they are the true freedom fighters in politics and stand by the oath they take when inaugurated, in other words total and complete hogwash. So long as you vote for these candidates because of the (R) or (D) rather than who is actually better for the job, that is wasting your vote. When you place a vote for the lesser of 2 evils rather than throwing your support to someone who fights for what you believe, that is wasting your vote. When you set your ideals and belief's on how this country should be run aside for more of the same, that is wasting your vote.
The biggest point to 3rd parties is not to win a miracle but rather keep the big 2 in check. If the big parties do not see a decline in their voting base and increase of votes going to the 3rd parties they will never be inclined to change their policies and platform to help bring back the defection vote, it will just be more of the same and we all know how that is going.
So in closing I support the Libertarians even though they have some work to do to even become a thorn in the side of the GOP but it is my hope that if the Libertarians continue to tread water in politics and not progress further that at the very least they can bring the GOP back to the Conservative side of politics, even if it is just a small measure of return because anything is better than the RINO's and neo-cons we have now.
cajunboy2k
Member
I voted Republican again this year because I didn't like Kerry, and the LP did not have a strong candidate. I like most of what the LP stand for, but the border and drug issues are the kickers. But, I think that if a LP won the POTUS, there would be enough votes in Congress to offset those two positions.
I need to do somemore reading into the LP before I make up my mind for sure. I consider myself an independent due to the fact that not one party has all the answers for the future of this country, and following them blindly just because they are DEM or REP is not the smartest thing to do.
I need to do somemore reading into the LP before I make up my mind for sure. I consider myself an independent due to the fact that not one party has all the answers for the future of this country, and following them blindly just because they are DEM or REP is not the smartest thing to do.
1911 guy
Member
Still forming opinions
I'm still a little undecided about the third party thing. On one hand I do agree with what a lot of the independants have been saying. On the other, I'm still stuck in what I know to be a flawed argument about splitting the "conservative" vote. I say conservative in quotes because most of us know there is only one agenda in D.C., just two paths to the same end.
As for borders and racism, the two are NOT mutual. Legal immigration is a wonderful thing, we're all here, in one way or another, because of it. Illegal is a whole 'nother animal. To quote Michael Savage: Borders, Language, Culture. Diversity is great, I'm teaching my wife and son to speak a little German, but we MUST have common ground as a society.
I'm still a little undecided about the third party thing. On one hand I do agree with what a lot of the independants have been saying. On the other, I'm still stuck in what I know to be a flawed argument about splitting the "conservative" vote. I say conservative in quotes because most of us know there is only one agenda in D.C., just two paths to the same end.
As for borders and racism, the two are NOT mutual. Legal immigration is a wonderful thing, we're all here, in one way or another, because of it. Illegal is a whole 'nother animal. To quote Michael Savage: Borders, Language, Culture. Diversity is great, I'm teaching my wife and son to speak a little German, but we MUST have common ground as a society.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked