let's face it, the highly religious, the ones we here have the biggest problem with, is the base of the Republican Party. given this, news of its imminent demise should thrill most Atheists. and make no mistake, barring a gargantuan shift in policies and rhetoric, they are absolutely on the path towards extinction.
it's common knowledge that the GOP is an old, white party. while not an absolute, that is an accurate enough description of the Republican Party today. two trends to keep in mind here. one, old people tend to die at a faster rate than young people. two, white people are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate. they are running out of supporters, and it's happening quicker than many thought.
take yesterday's election. President Obama won over 90% of the black vote and 70% of the latino and asian vote. Romney did well with seniors and whites overall. meanwhile, the country is getting browner. the GOP may end up becoming a whites only club, a nativist and pale collection of isolationists who choose to ignore the changing demographics of the country. worse, they may choose to keep it this way. if they choose this path, their extinction is all but guaranteed. their option would be to abandon their social issues, immigration policies, and economic austery programs and to open up their tent through real policy change.
anyone wanna bet which way they go?
for Atheists, either way is a win. if the GOP becomes irrelevant then the power of the religious right goes with it. if they truly make changes to make more people inclusive and begin to part with their religious base Atheists will celebrate. yesterday's election is better for Atheists than most people would think.
"Sealing" the border would be expensive and impractical. I think we could do a better job than we currently do though. A pathway to "citizenship" should involve going home, getting in line and paying a penalty, I totally agree. A pathway to "legalization" should not be that different, except the going home part.
I think what would help Conservatives/Republicans would be to soften the rhetoric on illegals. We should not have a position that we are going to "round up" millions of illegals. Sending them home is also not practical, especially if they have a family, job, home, have not committed a crime, etc. I would rather have them come out of the shadows and apply for some type of legal status that does not include citizenship, voting, etc.
I may be too soft on this issue for hard core conservatives. I think most illegals from south of the border came here for a job and a better way of life. Our businesses encouraged them and our government did not stop them. Right now, I would like to see us move past this issue, but my position is not that hard and I could be swayed. Romney's position probably hurt him, but was just one of a number of issues, including the difficulty of defeating an incumbent who was in the Oval Office during a natural disaster. Having most of the media/entertainment complex as cheer leaders is also very helpful.
Yeah, Mike, our current immigration policy is failing.
In the 1600s, a previous immigration policy failed.
In one corner we have the conservative Mike; in the other corner we have the conservative Jim.
Should be a good fight.
What fight, Tom?
Jim and I are merely engaging in an exchange of opinion.
I would also caution you against trying to instigate...
who's really doing the instigating? this is a thread discussing the GOP's faults, yet you've hijacked the thread to espouse conservative principles. i've remained mostly silent on this, but i'm thinking that the conversation between yourself and Jim belong elsewhere. it's one thing to defend your position as a conservative and disagree with the premise of this post, but it's another thing altogether to drown out any dialogue that may move the conversation further.
You engage in libelous propagandandizing, and you expect to do so without rebuttal.
I'm not allowed to set the record straight in order to defend my position.
Well Mr Greenberg, my original post was directed to you, and I apologize for not making that more clear.
Since I received no answer from you to that original post, I merely responded to those who did answer, and I simply followed the lines of conversation as they progressed.
It was not, and is not, my intention to hijack anything.
If you want me to, I will leave you to your thread.
But do have to say, that if you have a problem with free exchange of ideas Matt, then you might want to re-think that free-thinker thing...
no need for formalities Mike, please call me Matt. i must have missed your original post in the flurry of activity. i'll go back and look for it. as far as having a problem with the free exchange of ideas - no, i don't have a problem with that. which is why i was largely silent in your discussion. it wasn't for me to intervene in conservative in-fighting, so i let it be. however, the tone of the discussion was starting to deteriorate so i decided to speak up.
you don't have to leave. i think my statement kinda spoke for itself, which is to say that your conversation had veered well off topic and might be more useful in it's own dedicated thread.
and btw, i DID respond to your first comment. here is what i said:
you, my friend, are an anomaly. i have no doubt that conservatism is here to stay, but what form or party it ultimately takes root is somewhat up in the air. that said, the republican party can save itself, but only if it leaves the Religious Right behind. given that they make up some 30+% of their party i'm not confident they are capable of getting enough votes to remain viable without them. a big shakeup is coming, and watching how it shakes out will indeed be fascinating.
So you did Matt, and again I apologize.
The only reason I have as much time here as I do, is that I'm off work right now to deal with a case of cellulitis I picked up while working in the field (I work on communication towers).
Hope to be back to work tomorrow, but it's kind of amazing what a tiny scratch can lead to.
At any rate, I'm not exactly one hundred percent mentally at the moment and I'm not real used to that.
Might be a bit grumpy (and always ornery).
Pardon my passion.
no problem at all. i had that years ago from a dog bite. it sucks. get well, and i'm sure i'll see you around here.
There are costs associated with rounding up illegals and deporting them. One estimate is about $12,500 for all the expenses involved—police work, judicial hearings, etc. If there are 12 million illegal aliens, that amounts to a substantial bill of $150 billion. Other estimates put the total cost at between $94 billion and $215 billion, estimating that about one fourth would leave on their own and only 9 million would need to be processed through legal channels. Whatever it is, the direct costs of such a program will be substantial.
A large program aimed at removing illegal aliens would of course provide new jobs for law enforcement and court workers or else our police and courts would be swamped and unable to deal with other—perhaps more important—matters.