Coulter: Would Vote Clinton Over Mccain

[XIX]

She made a few good point but was her usual hysterical, conservative-version-of-Michael-Moore self. And "30 years of Democratic rule..." please...wasn't it just three years ago that Bush defeated Kerry and people thought the Dems were in shambles?

Read my previous post. I'm startled by how similar the right wingers look to the left wingers in their mudslinging. McCain is almost the worst choice for the GOP, and maybe he is the worst choice. I'm never going to vote for him in the primary, and I don't think he's nearly as conservative as myself regarding social issues (non-social issues really don't matter to me as it relates to voting. Oh no, higher taxes. Terror of terrors.)

He's a moderate. Freaking heck, he's not a socialist. He's not on NARAL's payroll. Would I prefer a conservative over a moderate? Absolutely! But if McCain does win the Presidency, we have a fighting chance at doing OK for the next 4 or 8 years. We need to stop acting like he's the second coming of Ted Kennedy, and start thinking rationally for a change.

Most--not all, but most--of the McCain bashing has been logically bankrupt. Ann Coulter wasn't much of an exception.

[Socrates]

[quote name='son_of_angels' post='1455006' date='Feb 3 2008, 06:02 PM']1. "This would destroy the sovereignty of the United States." Perhaps. Sovereignty of the "corpus politicus" is not absolute, it grows, changes, and adapts according to its activity and the individual elements of it. For instance, the definition of national sovereignty has changed drastically since the sovereign status of its individual states was laid in question during the Civil War. If it is possible to define sovereignty within the context of international binding treaties, it is equally possible for the United States to give up some elements of her sovereignty for the greater good, with the ability to remove from that agreement always reserved.
As for the "permanent lower class" bit, that is the same kind of reasoning that was used in the desegregation era: that integration would ultimately increase hatred between blacks and whites and force blacks further down than what they were presently. It is baloney, because the society responds to the legal conditions with more dexterity than is always predictable. If Mexicans are quickly integrated into American culture, not as a one-time amnesty, but as a permanent feature, they will become immediately drawn into the overall American and Mexican culture, which will create the social structures necessary to accomodate them. But if strict immigration laws, which separate many workers from their host society, continue, THEY continue to create a permanent lower class, and make the lower classes even lower in Mexico herself.
2. "A free and open border is not a border." This is not true. If we look at the European Union, there are in fact national borders, and there is in fact freedom of movement. We are perfectly capable, through an arbitrated and independent joint border security program to create an invisible border which effectively keeps track of dangerous people and substances. Think Interpol. We have already violated the idea of a closed border by the Free Trade agreement; freedom of movement is the natural consequence of that policy. But keep in mind, if you wish to change that policy, you better give up getting your cheap prices at Wal-Mart.
3. "A free and opened border would sink the United States." More likely, it would bring the United States into the third millenia as far as global politics are concerned. Increasingly we are facing a united Europe, Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. If we do not bring our own sphere of influence together we risk becoming entirely backward in the new world. Military solutions will not help us if we do not have the political clout to gain coalition supporters. In fact, it would make us more, in the spirit of JRR Tolkien, a Queen among Queens, rather than among slaves.
4. "Mexico has her own problems." Not exactly true. Mexico depends on the United States economically, so it would be more correct to say that Mexico has OUR own problems, and the problems that free trade have created for her. Increasingly, upper and middle income jobs leave Mexico, which means that some illegal immigrants have high school diplomas and undergraduate studies, but cannot get any job at all in their own country. If we make movement free, and created a unitary passport between us and Mexico, we will make it possible for their highest and brightest to come to work in the United States, and at the same time increase wages and prices in the Mexican economy.
5. As for the Rome reference, learn your history. Rome fell out of its own pride and lack of vision; in fact, learn St. Augustine and see that the seeds of its destruction were sown through the corruption of its leaders and their constant mix between pandering and savagery.
6. Finally, there is hardly any reason to get fussy about illegal immigrants. Instead, we should be worried about their conditions, and about making them productive members of our society. We are not, at present, population limited, and the reasons they are here--family, security, hope--are reasons which are at the heart of the Church. I welcome the added number of Catholics, many with very conservative family values, and think that it is in Latin America that America can find its new vocation in what should be a post-superpower world.
Some other comments made were about populism. In fact, I never mentioned populism, but liberalism. Populism is not a structural form for government, but a type of engagement with the citizenry. In fact, populism, or the "tyranny of the majority" can be just as conservative, i.e. Iran, as it can be liberalism. But as far as the "tyranny of the majority" goes, the Founding Fathers may have wanted to avoid such a thing, but it was usually on the basis of giving some balance to individual interest groups, not usually conservative, in the government. Keep in mind that this is in the era of the Enlightenment, when Rationalism was rearing its ugly head.[/quote]
There's really more wrong with this post than I have time to address, and I've already argued in greater detail against SoA's ideas in past threads. Needless to say I disagree with almost all his political ideas.
A few brief points:
A country (America or any other other nation) has a right to national sovereignity and to protecting her own borders as she sees fit. There is no need for a sovereign to give up national sovereignity to globalist international or supranational bodies "for the greater good." This directly violates the principle of subsidiarity, and there is absolutely no guarantee that globalist governing entities (such as the U.N.) will in fact rule justly and disinterestedly "for the greater good." I do not think I am unreasonable in fearing that they will do just the opposite.

Ideology aside, the fact is that unchecked unlimited immigration is not an unqualified good. The "best and brightest" Mexicans (and other immigrants) generally have no problem becoming legal citizens in the U.S., and are not the issue here.
However, a country simply cannot handle unchecked immigration, and allow everyone and anyone across the border without serious negative consequences. It is a problem when we have enormous numbers of people pouring across the border, who have no allegience to nor respect for their new country of residence, who make no attempt at assimilating, and who do in fact create an underclass which both burdens the system and are often exploited by unscupulous businesses.
Many who cross the border illegally are criminals, and with high hispanic immigration has come great increases in gang and drug-related violence. (This has been a problem locally, so I know what I'm talking about.)
I know I'll probably be denounced as a racist bigot, but my point is not that all immigrants are bad and should be kept out, but rather that open borders is a stupid idea, and immigration should be reasonably regulated, as it was in the past.

And I would hardly hold up the EU, with its often anti-Christian regulations imposed on sovereign nations, as a model for our emulation.
As for "bringing the United States into the third millenia," similar "progressive" "march-of-history" rhetoric was employed by Communists and Socialists in the 20th century.

Edited February 11, 2008 by Socrates

[Aloysius]

McCain does not have a shot at the General Election. Support him or not, he will not win. Coulter's statement was really true: given the choice between a democrat and a democrat, the people will always vote for a democrat.

They will both increase the size of the Federal Government beyond its means. The National Taxpayer's Union estimates John McCain's proposals as costing the federal government over 6 billion dollars. We're way too far in debt to be doing this kind of stuff. What's the difference if we crash our economy by a little or by a lot? The point is that it will be a crashed economy with either party. It's not "horror of horror: higher taxes"... it's "horror of horror: bankrupt country". I hope I'm wrong, but the direction I see this going with either party with their continuing exponential increases of federal government leading to the largest recession we've ever seen. Risk a depression for the tiny possibility a somewhat favorable judge could be appointed if that even came up and a few pro-life laws if they ever got through congress wouldn't be vetoed? No thanks.

God help me, but Coulter may be right on this. Because the hypocrisy of neo-conservative republicanism will lead to economic ruin far faster than the outright socialism of the democrats. At least when the democrats break our backs with out of control spending, they balance the budget sheet and break our backs with just as much taxes... something which will send our economy continuing down its current path as people will be burdened with that tax, but with the hypocritical neo-conservative no tax but spend exponentially, I see a sharp cliff up ahead rather than the steady decline the democrats'll do.

Anyway, of course they'll probably come up with another little band-aid and stave this off for a little longer... but we can't get by with all these band-aids for long. eventually we'll have to go swimming, and band-aids totally come off in the water. We are in desperate need of a true conservative government, and I mean DESPERATE need. and only a truly conservative government could even really effectively change the legal code against abortion (look up the We the People Act). McCain not being a real conservative = no real change.