Previous -4 - 0
In response to:

Legal Illegal Immigration

2012Conservative Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 7:41 PM
When a country is a 'democracy' -- but it has a large number of poor people -- the majority of those people will vote for political parties that are Socialist. South Africa, Venezuela and Brazil are three examples that come to mind. Even if these people may agree with traditional social issues (like marriage, abortion, religious expression) -- Democrats will often accomodate those positions when they have an electorate that has those beliefs.
In response to:

Legal Illegal Immigration

2012Conservative Wrote: Jun 28, 2012 7:38 PM
Let's say we have an open door or amnesty policy for immigration. What group will come in the U.S. in the largest numbers? The obvious answer is Mexicans -- we share a large border with Mexico and Mexico has a much larger population than Canada. Further, the U.S. offers significantly more social/welfare benefits than does Mexico (and that is not really true with Canada). Allowing large numbers of poor people to immigrate will likely keep wages down -- and may make certain industries more competitive. However, if our country keeps having larger numbers of poor people (especially those who may not be able to speak English) -- it is likely that most of these people will be members of an almost permanent poor class.
Even if Egypt's new President is the person most favored by the Egyptian people, that does not make him somebody we should 'believe.' While Iran had some issues related to its Presidential elections, the current President is liked by many Iranians. This whole prospect with Syria is also a pretty signficiant worry to me. Like Egypt, Syria has a significant Christian minority -- an Islamist party threatens millions of these people. There is no clear answer to the problems in the Middle East. We can only hope that the younger generation has been exposed to freedom via the internet -- and that these peoople will vote in large numbers for freedom.
Conservatives need to remind people that the Supreme Court decisions recognizing 2nd Amendment rights were both 5-4 decisions. Holder's policy was clearly very bad -- but what is more important is that Courts recognize fundamental 2nd Amendment rights.
Dating from the 1930s, many Court decisions allow for the federal government to have a much larger role than was contemplated at the beginning of our republic. It is interesting that this was upheld on a taxation basis rather than the Commerce Clause. Because health care is so heavily regulated (by both state and federal governments) the market applies very little to health care. Very few advocates want to alllow for easier use of medical equipment and drugs. The costs of these kinds of things are artificially high because there is so much red tape necessary in order to be able to sell/use new devices for medical treatment. Technology should have caused a reduction in medical costs -- but regulation has prevented that.
Previous -4 - 0