1. Yes, he has read the Constitution, and noticed that the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, and the federal government has no Constitutional Authority to ban intoxicants.
2. If a strategy has failed in its purpose after fifty years, a new strategy is called for.
3. so what?
4. again, so what? it ain’t gonna happen.
5. Horrors, he was a banker.
6. If you are against immigration, go back to where your ancestors came from. If you’re a red indian, go back to Siberia.
7. Noboby’s perfect. You have evidence of this?
Whew. You sure embrace some unpopular positions here at FR.
> 6. If you are against immigration, go back to where your
> ancestors came from. If you’re a red indian, go back to
> Siberia.
There is a whole lot of difference between orderly immigration and open borders. Were the US to have had open borders 30 years ago, it would now be majority ethnically Mexican, and its dominant language would be Spanish.
But this is also a major red flag, because unrestricted immigration is advocated as a tool to undermine nations by the ‘socialist international’ organization of political parties. They believe nations to be arbitrary, and that dominant ethnic groups, cultures and religions should be diluted until a nation loses its uniqueness and purpose, and is under the control of a single socialist party.
> 7. Noboby’s perfect. You have evidence of this?
He embraces the axioms of MMGW:
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/5607
George Schultz endorses Carbon Tax:
http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/07/13/george-shultz-endorses-carbon-tax-you-were-surprised/
I'm not against immigration. I'm for orderly and controlled immigration. "Open borders" is not orderly and controlled immigration.