1996 Flashback -- Bill Clinton Talks Like Trump On Immigration

[UK2K]

But there are some areas that the federal government should not leave and should address and address strongly. One of these areas is the problem of illegal immigration. After years of neglect, this administration has taken a strong stand to stiffen the protection of our borders. We are increasing border controls by 50 percent. We are increasing inspections to prevent the hiring of illegal immigrants. And tonight, I announce I will sign an executive order to deny federal contracts to businesses that hire illegal immigrants.

Let me be very clear about this: We are still a nation of immigrants; we should be proud of it. We should honor every legal immigrant here, working hard to become a new citizen. But we are also a nation of laws.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/1996_flashback_bill_clinton_talks_like_trump_on_im migration_we_are_a_nation_of_laws.html

It's only racist when a Republican says it.

[Snarky Narc]

So, the Republicans are stuck in the mindset and policies of people from 20 years ago?

[nathanjizzle]

where did he say "mexicans are rapists"

[UK2K]

So, the Republicans are stuck in the mindset and policies of people from 20 years ago?

So it WAS racist then, you just didn't say it?

[UK2K]

where did he say "mexicans are rapists"
He didn't say 'Mexicans are rapists'; no matter how many times you repeat that lie, it doesn't make it true. May make you feel better, but informed people see right through it.

Try again.

[Snarky Narc]

So it WAS racist then, you just didn't say it?
Sure. But the party has progressed since then, while the Republicans now are only as good as an outdated version of the Democrats. There has been a lot of progress in America since then, but the Republicans backing Trump don't want to have any of that progress.

[UK2K]

Sure. But the party has progressed since then, while the Republicans now are only as good as an outdated version of the Democrats. There has been a lot of progress in America since then, but the Republicans backing Trump don't want to have any of that progress.

Another term for 'whatever gets you votes'. You're right, the Democrat has progressed, in whichever direction it takes to win an election.

[Dresta]

Sure. But the party has progressed since then, while the Republicans now are only as good as an outdated version of the Democrats. There has been a lot of progress in America since then, but the Republicans backing Trump don't want to have any of that progress.
:roll: :roll: :roll:

"progress" "we're progressing forwards guiz..."


It's been 20 years you total dingus; nothing significant has changed in this time; all the problems evident then have simply got worse (financial abuse, low-interest rates, economic distortion/bubbles, mass indebtedness, academic inflation, unsustainable welfare systems, an out of control military industrial complex, an unaccountable political class, and the masses obsessed with the small, the petty, and the trivial). If anything, still being pro-mass immigration, despite an extra 20 years of evidence pointing to its futility and destructiveness, shows that you are fundamentally regressive, and incapable of changing your opinion with the facts due to blind adherence to a political religion that tells you you are "progressing" somewhere (where, exactly?). How can you not realise you're just playing with arbitrary labels here, and there is no scale of progression/regression except the one that exists in your own mind? Anyone can say the views they hold are progressive; in fact, the puritans of the Victorian era saw themselves as "progressive" also; then, people who favoured things like allowing people to drink booze or to satirise existing moral norms, &c. were considered unprogressive; hence why Laurence Sterne's masterpiece Tristram Shandy was considered not progressive enough for the Victorian era, but amazingly before its time in the 20th century, a progenitor of Woolf and Joyce and others (i.e. of modernism)!

What you call progress is really just a combination of temporary fashions and established orthodoxy. I don't even think old-fashioned conservative morality can really be called conservative nowadays, because it's already been completely disestablished; you only need to look at what people can and cannot say, can and cannot mock/ridicule to know what have become the established moral norms of the era, and they are all the things generally associated with being "progressive." Swapping one set of moral prejudices for another does not constitute progress; alas, when the morality that protects the family is set-aside for lachrymose and sentimental universalism, when it comes to the protection of things like liberty and personal privacy, we are going backwards, because the family is the absolute foundation stone of these things. This is why all totalitarian despotisms in human history have sought to undermine and degrade this most human and natural and healthy of institutions.


"b-b-but progress"

:hammerhead:

Such a simple-minded fool. All that has changed in the last 20 years is that one extra generation of ideologically-brainwashed brats have been added to the voting demographic; these people, born and bred on a history of civil rights and other "causes" need a cause of their own to justify their existences and find purpose, so they jump onto whatever fashionable cause they can find, and when they've achieved their "goals" latch immediately onto the next universalist dogma that presents itself (e.g. now mass migration, then "gay rights," 5th-stage feminism, chicks with *****, etc.). This movement has already progressed from parody to farce, and I find it amazing that people can still prescribe to such a reductionist, melioristic view of history and of historical progression. It is illogical rubbish, and based only on an abstract faith in natural human goodness, a faith completely contradicted by all known historical fact.

[Im Still Ballin]

:roll: :roll: :roll:

"progress" "we're progressing forwards guiz..."


It's been 20 years you total dingus; nothing significant has changed in this time; all the problems evident then have simply got worse (financial abuse, low-interest rates, economic distortion/bubbles, mass indebtedness, academic inflation, unsustainable welfare systems, an out of control military industrial complex, an unaccountable political class, and the masses obsessed with the small, the petty, and the trivial). If anything, still being pro-mass immigration, despite an extra 20 years of evidence pointing to its futility and destructiveness, shows that you are fundamentally regressive, and incapable of changing your opinion with the facts due to blind adherence to a political religion that tells you you are "progressing" somewhere (where, exactly?). How can you not realise you're just playing with arbitrary labels here, and there is no scale of progression/regression except the one that exists in your own mind? Anyone can say the views they hold are progressive; in fact, the puritans of the Victorian era saw themselves as "progressive" also; then, people who favoured things like allowing people to drink booze or to satirise existing moral norms, &c. were considered unprogressive; hence why Laurence Sterne's masterpiece Tristram Shandy was considered not progressive enough for the Victorian era, but amazingly before its time in the 20th century, a progenitor of Woolf and Joyce and others (i.e. of modernism)!

What you call progress is really just a combination of temporary fashions and established orthodoxy. I don't even think old-fashioned conservative morality can really be called conservative nowadays, because it's already been completely disestablished; you only need to look at what people can and cannot say, can and cannot mock/ridicule to know what have become the established moral norms of the era, and they are all the things generally associated with being "progressive." Swapping one set of moral prejudices for another does not constitute progress; alas, when the morality that protects the family is set-aside for lachrymose and sentimental universalism, when it comes to the protection of things like liberty and personal privacy, we are going backwards, because the family is the absolute foundation stone of these things. This is why all totalitarian despotisms in human history have sought to undermine and degrade this most human and natural and healthy of institutions.


"b-b-but progress"

:hammerhead:

Such a simple-minded fool. All that has changed in the last 20 years is that one extra generation of ideologically-brainwashed brats have been added to the voting demographic; these people, born and bred on a history of civil rights and other "causes" need a cause of their own to justify their existences and find purpose, so they jump onto whatever fashionable cause they can find, and when they've achieved their "goals" latch immediately onto the next universalist dogma that presents itself (e.g. now mass migration, then "gay rights," 5th-stage feminism, chicks with *****, etc.). This movement has already progressed from parody to farce, and I find it amazing that people can still prescribe to such a reductionist, melioristic view of history and of historical progression. It is illogical rubbish, and based only on an abstract faith in natural human goodness, a faith completely contradicted by all known historical fact.
The whole "Progress" idea is just a cheap politician ploy to increase morale. The empathetic coming of age youth suck it up, one generation after the next.

[DonDadda59]

Talk about a stretch. :lol

I didn't hear anything about a great wall or the mass deportation of 11 million people.

And since it's Flashback Wednesday...

[INDENT]"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman," he said. "I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she's given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

Asked whether he would support her in the case of a presidential run, Trump said that he did not "want to get into this because I will get myself into trouble."

"I just like her," Trump remarked, adding the same of the former president.

"I like her husband. Her husband made a speech on Monday and was very well received. He is

[Draz]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Talk about a stretch. :lol

I didn't hear anything about a great wall or the mass deportation of 11 million people.

And since it's Flashback Wednesday...

[INDENT]"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman," he said. "I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she's given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

Asked whether he would support her in the case of a presidential run, Trump said that he did not "want to get into this because I will get myself into trouble."

"I just like her," Trump remarked, adding the same of the former president.

"I like her husband. Her husband made a speech on Monday and was very well received. He is

[UK2K]

[QUOTE=DonDadda59]Talk about a stretch. :lol

I didn't hear anything about a great wall or the mass deportation of 11 million people.

And since it's Flashback Wednesday...

[INDENT]"Hillary Clinton I think is a terrific woman," he said. "I am biased because I have known her for years. I live in New York. She lives in New York. I really like her and her husband both a lot. I think she really works hard. And I think, again, she's given an agenda, it is not all of her, but I think she really works hard and I think she does a good job. I like her."

Asked whether he would support her in the case of a presidential run, Trump said that he did not "want to get into this because I will get myself into trouble."

"I just like her," Trump remarked, adding the same of the former president.

"I like her husband. Her husband made a speech on Monday and was very well received. He is