Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Bob Woodward, Conservative Warrior

Paul12292 Wrote: Mar 04, 2013 1:09 AM
Not just the worst president ever but also the worst person ever to be president.
Greenberg is a committed ignoramus/fool when it comes to immigration. On this subject, nothing budges him away from his stupidity.
In response to:

In Defense of Losing

Paul12292 Wrote: Feb 12, 2013 1:55 AM
Greenberg is often an interesting writer. But on the subject of immigration, he is an adamantly clueless twit.
In response to:

Arrogance Isn't the Answer

Paul12292 Wrote: Jan 31, 2013 1:05 AM
We don't need immigration. Period. One problem with immigration is that everyone thinks he knows about the subject. In fact, few people know anything more than tired slogans like "We're a nation of immigrants!" [we're not] or, "There were protests before, but it worked out fine" [only because it STOPPED in the mid-1920s]. Etc.
In response to:

GOP Leaders May Finally Be Catching On

Paul12292 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 2:05 AM
Kemp was a drooling fool on immigration, and so is Towery. "No shortcut to citizenship." They DON"T CARE about citizenship!!!!! All they want is to not have to go back to their hellhole-countries of origin. But we should insist that they go back because their being here degrades life for us: If they get legal status, yes they'll pay more taxes. But they'll consume a lot more in services, making them an even bigger drain than they are now.
Mostly a good article, but with these problems: 1. Hawkins wrote, "While immigration is certainly good for America, .." No, on the whole it isn't. Probably never has been. Certainly isn't now. 2. Hawkins wrote, "Moreover, if we have a second "one time" amnesty, why wouldn't we have a third, a fourth, or a fifth?" Actually, we've already had a SEVENTH. See here: https://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/illegal-immigration/seven-amnesties-passed-congress.html So now we're talking about an EIGHTH amnesty.
In response to:

On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won't Comply

Paul12292 Wrote: Dec 30, 2012 11:45 PM
What a dim bulb you must be, kjohnson364.
In response to:

On Obamacare (and Guns), We Won't Comply

Paul12292 Wrote: Dec 30, 2012 11:42 PM
What a stupid comment. The wars resulted from 9/11. Clinton could have had Bin Laden delivered to him in '96 or '97. The Dems supported both wars. Well before GW Bush (admittedly, a lousy president, except when compared with the current horror) became prez, many Dems were on record saying that Saddam Hussein had to go. Watch for yourself: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhZ2ZvS2t_E NCLB was a Teddy Kennedy project (GW Bush cooperating). Airline bailout was in the aftermath of 9/11. The financial collapse started because people who should never have been granted mortgages stopped paying on them. Application of the Community Reinvestment Act and related pressure on lenders starting during Clinton's term were the causes.
In response to:

Once There Were Giants

Paul12292 Wrote: Dec 25, 2012 1:45 AM
Beyond the positives Greenberg provides, there was an enormous negative about Inouye. On the country's existential threat from mass immigration, he was an enabler. In particular, he voted steadily in favor of mass amnesties in 2006, 2007, and 2010. So when the chips were down, Inouye was ultimately a visionless political hack, not a giant.
In response to:

Estudia espanol!

Paul12292 Wrote: Nov 15, 2012 1:44 AM
Paul Greenberg is a reliable fool on the subject of immigration. He is clueless about what it's doing to the country -- and about how unnecessary immigration is to us citizens, for whom the country exists. Actually, it's worse than unnecessary -- for most of the American public, our current regime of mass immigration (both legal and illegal) is utterly pernicious.
Wrong, like so many of these self-important idiot-savant pundits are, about immigration. Since when is enforcing the law an "extremist position." Yet that's all Romney was talking about when he summarized it as "self-deportation": Once illegal aliens know we're serious about enforcing our immigration laws, they'll respond to that (dis)incentive. For many of them, that means leaving. It works every time its been allowed to work, going back to the 1950s.
Previous 11 - 20 Next