Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP

[Mind Flayer Monk]

This sounds more like 47 senators signed a letter asking Iran to open the wallet and contribute to their reelection campaigns.

[MV/Liberace!]

To be fair to Man-boy, nobody cares about Duncan Hunter Jr.

I can't find any quotes from the resident U.S Senate war mongers - John McCain or Lindsey Graham advocating the U.S invade Iran.  Just unspecified threats.

but it does establish that there is an elected legislator who endorses war with iran, and i found it in only 11 seconds.  there have to be others.

whether an "attack iran" quote by mccain or graham can be found or not, i'm certain each of those men routinely become erect at the thought.  mccain/graham are the worst kind of republicans, in my opinion.

[PB the Deplorable]

but it does establish that there is an elected legislator who endorses war with iran, and i found it in only 11 seconds.  there have to be others.

whether an "attack iran" quote by mccain or graham can be found or not, i'm certain each of those men routinely become erect at the thought.  mccain/graham are the worst kind of republicans, in my opinion.

Well, there are 435 House members, and 100 Senators.  There are also 5 non-voting delegates, 1 each representing the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

So you can probably find several that think attacking Iran is a good idea.  These are usually not the brightest people - you could probably find support for anything, no matter how outlandish.  Hell, there's even one who thinks islands are floating and can tip over if too much weight is put on them.

[Zoo]

Well, there are 435 House members, and 100 Senators.  There are also 5 non-voting delegates, 1 each representing the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

So you can probably find several that think attacking Iran is a good idea.  These are usually not the brightest people - you could probably find support for anything, no matter how outlandish.  Hell, there's even one who thinks islands are floating and can tip over if too much weight is put on them.

And they are almost all Porch Dicks!!1

[NowhereInTime]

Pig F**king Traitors: the GOP

What an absolutely lovely title for the thread!

I bet the ass-hat that started this gem, prolly used the term "tea-baggers"!

So hip, so kewl, man I am convinced!

Double plus good, and I don't even need to read any of this shit!

Gee, Pate, I'm flattered! You obviously drank the whole handle of Inverhouse before staggering onto this thread to add, well, nothing!

Bottoms up!

[NowhereInTime]

Well, there are 435 House members, and 100 Senators.  There are also 5 non-voting delegates, 1 each representing the District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands.

So you can probably find several that think attacking Iran is a good idea.  These are usually not the brightest people - you could probably find support for anything, no matter how outlandish.

And they all tend to be conservatives. 

Hell, there's even one who thinks islands are floating and can tip over if too much weight is put on them.

Jim Inhofe, again?

[NowhereInTime]

No, I didn't know who Jerzey Urban is because he was a minor official in Poland in the 80s. 

I know who he is because of this bullshit story he planted while paying attention to the events surrounding what turned out to be the final stages of the Cold War.  Also known as 'current events', or, 'the news'.

Yes, given your politics, I could easily see how you think a minor news event like this from the 1980's would be "current events".

Come join us in the next century!  Hey, did you know we elected a black president?!?

[136 or 142]

And they all tend to be conservatives. 

Jim Inhofe, again?

Actually it was Georgia Democratic Congressman Hank Johnson.  Mr Johnson claims to have been joking, and given that he is actually a rather bright person, he probably was.

[ONeill]

I understand plenty. Most of all I understand you don't show up to gunfight with a peashooter, a lesson you would do well to learn.  Better luck next time.

Your Internet masculinity is truly impressive.

You understood nothing. And PaperBory is right, it isn't that difficult. Someone as supposedly bright as you should have got something out of it. My point was that is it generally good to try to have some perspective when you use expressions like 'traitor'. One day in your life you may see some real traitors and you will lack proper expressions in your vocabulary.

[ONeill]

Yes, given your politics, I could easily see how you think a minor news event like this from the 1980's would be "current events".

Come join us in the next century!  Hey, did you know we elected a black president?!?

You are such a beacon of blazing bigotry.

[NowhereInTime]

Your Internet masculinity is truly impressive.

Umm...thanks?

You understood nothing. And PaperBory is right, it isn't that difficult. Someone as supposedly bright as you should have got something out of it. My point was that is it generally good to try to have some perspective when you use expressions like 'traitor'. One day in your life you may see some real traitors and you will lack proper expressions in your vocabulary.

I get the impression that maybe you aren't from around these parts so I'll stop being a prick to you, but with all due respect, there is no way a history lesson about a guy from Poland who zingered Reagan, who is still alive and publishing, gives me any lesson about treason.  I really feel conservatives in this country, driven by hatred for the president, would rather see war, even nuclear war, then peace with Iran. To undermine a good faith effort by not only Obama, but the UK, China, France, Russia, and Germany to bring Iran out of isolation and away from nuclear weaponry is treasonous. Not only do they overstep their authority by creating this "shadow government", they expose the nation (and the world) to nuclear danger by an isolated, desperate Iran.

My point, which you have not understood from the start, is they represent a minority of people in this country; they do not speak for this nation (let alone the world) - yet they presume to try to scuttle this plan, before even knowing its final version, by threatening Iran with its denial or repeal?

It is one of the most audacious, irresponsible things I have ever seen; putting the world in jeopardy just to make sure Obama fails.  How can you possibly support that?

[NowhereInTime]

You are such a beacon of blazing bigotry.

Again, I get there may be some context issues you do not get, but this was sarcasm towards Paper*Boy's bluffing attempt at one-upping me.

If you read his posts going back years, he has had nothing but vitriol toward Obama; vitriol which has seen some Freudian slips into obvious racism. 

Not only that, but has made dire predictions about the Obama economy (like "debasing the currency"; "Weimar type inflation";  "massive unemployment" and economic depression) that, a quick glance at CNBC will tell you, were ALL wrong but he won't confess to it.

He predicted Obamacare would "bankrupt the economy" and "lead to massive job losses" when, in fact, the opposite is true: small businesses no longer have to deal with healthcare benefit issues and can use capital to expand business, like my boss did, and the Congressional Budget Office has recently posted revised DOWNWARD the costs of Obamacare over the next 20 years.

He predicted that Obama was going to "take away his rights", including his rights to own firearms. When? Six years in it hasn't happened yet. What rights have been abridged? Certainly not his right to post fiction as fact!

So, before you hitch your wagon to that train to Neverland, please do a little research as to who is who before casting such aspersions.   Thank you.

And thank you again for complementing my masculinity in a previous post...

[ONeill]

Umm...thanks?

I get the impression that maybe you aren't from around these parts so I'll stop being a prick to you, but with all due respect, there is no way a history lesson about a guy from Poland who zingered Reagan, who is still alive and publishing, gives me any lesson about treason.  I really feel conservatives in this country, driven by hatred for the president, would rather see war, even nuclear war, then peace with Iran. To undermine a good faith effort by not only Obama, but the UK, China, France, Russia, and Germany to bring Iran out of isolation and away from nuclear weaponry is treasonous. Not only do they overstep their authority by creating this "shadow government", they expose the nation (and the world) to nuclear danger by an isolated, desperate Iran.

My point, which you have not understood from the start, is they represent a minority of people in this country; they do not speak for this nation (let alone the world) - yet they presume to try to scuttle this plan, before even knowing its final version, by threatening Iran with its denial or repeal?

It is one of the most audacious, irresponsible things I have ever seen; putting the world in jeopardy just to make sure Obama fails.  How can you possibly support that?

I am not giving you history lessons just trying to point out that the vitriol you present regarding this issue in not justifiable. They people you are referring to simply have a different opinion on the issue than you. And I brought up Poland, because in here we have had a whole bunch of people who have been literally selling the sovereignty of our country to Soviet Union/Russia for their private benefits. The worst thing is that in 1989 they weren't prosecuted or even faded into irrelevance, they are still around and doing well.

The logics you are presenting in your arguments is simply flawed, because you are for some reason standing on the ground of self proclaimed moral superiority. I fully agree that the GOP doesn't represent the majority of the US. For some reason you think that Obama & the Democrats do? I completely disagree. The GOP won last two midterm elections in waves. Before Obama they had won the presidency twice. And I think it is far from impossible that in January 2017 we will have a Republican in the White House. If you look at the Democrat bench it looks really bad and I don't believe Clinton is a viable candidate. Will you then concede that the GOP president represents the majority of Americans?

I am not talking anything about the Iran deal, I don't know any details of it. In general I am against isolating other countries. It only fuels extremisms and hurts the poorest people in those countries. But depending on the details I may also be totally against it for some other reasons.

[136 or 142]

If you read his posts going back years, he has had nothing but vitriol toward Obama; vitriol which has seen some Freudian slips into obvious racism. 

Man-Boy's comments on Muslims not only border on rascism/prejudice but are the definition of racism and prejudice.

[ONeill]

Again, I get there may be some context issues you do not get, but this was sarcasm towards Paper*Boy's bluffing attempt at one-upping me.

If you read his posts going back years, he has had nothing but vitriol toward Obama; vitriol which has seen some Freudian slips into obvious racism. 

Not only that, but has made dire predictions about the Obama economy (like "debasing the currency"; "Weimar type inflation";  "massive unemployment" and economic depression) that, a quick glance at CNBC will tell you, were ALL wrong but he won't confess to it.

He predicted Obamacare would "bankrupt the economy" and "lead to massive job losses" when, in fact, the opposite is true: small businesses no longer have to deal with healthcare benefit issues and can use capital to expand business, like my boss did, and the Congressional Budget Office has recently posted revised DOWNWARD the costs of Obamacare over the next 20 years.

He predicted that Obama was going to "take away his rights", including his rights to own firearms. When? Six years in it hasn't happened yet. What rights have been abridged? Certainly not his right to post fiction as fact!

So, before you hitch your wagon to that train to Neverland, please do a little research as to who is who before casting such aspersions.   Thank you.

And thank you again for complementing my masculinity in a previous post...

Again - those are your opinions. And what your boss did is statistically irrelevant. I have read plenty of reports about employers cutting hours so that they can avoid Obamacare. I also know that normally we deal with unemployment by getting people to work, in the US they are actively pushed out of the work force by living of various government benefits. If they don't look for a job, they are not unemployed. Furthermore, you have people working multiple part-time jobs, all of them count into the statistics. Also the jobs structure is not looking good for the US economy, you guys are creating plenty of low-paying, low-skill jobs. Sure, the unemployment number itself looks better. One can also increase the definition of obesity by 40 pounds, it surely won't decrease the number of obese people by itself. I'm not saying the US economy is not improving, I just see a lot of books being cooked.

In 2008 just before the financial crash Paul Krugman among others was saying that everything is cool and there is nothing to worry about, we can print all of the money we want and go all Falkie on some plasma TVs. He sure is saying the same things now. And I actually think we will have a crash because of currency debasing. The issue is that the financial markets have created so many manipulations financial instruments that suck in all this printed money. All of it goes to buy options, insurances of options, insurances of insurances, insurances of options for insurances etc. This can only go on if you assume that this pit has an infinite capacity, which I don't believe. On top of that the dollar is the world's reserve currency, so China is eager to sell you a TV to get some dollars and stockpile them. At some point all this money will unleash and will be used to buy some hard assets, this is I am afraid in longer term inevitable.

Also - why did we have QE2? Because QE1 didn't work. Why did we have QE3? Because QE2 didn't work. According to all financial pundits who now are cheering a great success the QE1 + the first great stimulus should have been enough.

I don't know about opinion of other people that you consider racists. Forgive me but I might be having some problems really valuing your opinion on that matter. The first of your posts in this topic that I read started with calling the 47 senators racist because they signed a letter, which reminds me only of the House of Cards season 3 presidential debate and the 'sexism' accusations by Jackie Sharp. Is Tim Scott also racist?

[albrecht]

Again - those are your opinions. And what your boss did is statistically irrelevant. I have read plenty of reports about employers cutting hours so that they can avoid Obamacare. I also know that normally we deal with unemployment by getting people to work, in the US they are actively pushed out of the work force by living of various government benefits. If they don't look for a job, they are not unemployed. Furthermore, you have people working multiple part-time jobs, all of them count into the statistics. Also the jobs structure is not looking good for the US economy, you guys are creating plenty of low-paying, low-skill jobs. Sure, the unemployment number itself looks better. One can also increase the definition of obesity by 40 pounds, it surely won't decrease the number of obese people by itself. I'm not saying the US economy is not improving, I just see a lot of books being cooked.

In 2008 just before the financial crash Paul Krugman among others was saying that everything is cool and there is nothing to worry about, we can print all of the money we want and go all Falkie on some plasma TVs. He sure is saying the same things now. And I actually think we will have a crash because of currency debasing. The issue is that the financial markets have created so many manipulations financial instruments that suck in all this printed money. All of it goes to buy options, insurances of options, insurances of insurances, insurances of options for insurances etc. This can only go on if you assume that this pit has an infinite capacity, which I don't believe. On top of that the dollar is the world's reserve currency, so China is eager to sell you a TV to get some dollars and stockpile them. At some point all this money will unleash and will be used to buy some hard assets, this is I am afraid in longer term inevitable.

I don't know about opinion of other people that you consider racists. Forgive but I might having some problems really valuing your opinion on that matter. The first of your posts in this topic that I read started with calling the 47 senators racist because they signed a letter, which reminds me only of the House of Cards season 3 presidential debate and the 'sexism' accusations by Jackie Sharp. Is Tim Scott also racist?

Racism means you don't agree with their agenda or are a political enemy. It just happens to be the worst thing that can be said about someone right now (you are better off being called a pedophile in some circumstances.) So the term is thrown around as a way to label someone when debate, facts, or logic won't work. You are "racist" so your arguments, or the facts, don't matter. You don't agree with Obama or the far-left agenda so you are a racist. Q.E.D.

This is because these days, at least in the USA and much of Western Europe, if you are are racist (or at least said something racist) you will almost be treated worse in the press than a pedophile or if you actually committing physical harm against someone. Words matter more than deeds to these people. Even if it was said in private, was a joke, or whatever. Compare the treatment of super-rich pedophile Epstein (was and in some cases still is taking trips around with Clinton, some Royal, famous rich people etc and the press isn't touching that story) with the treatment of super-rich guy like the Clipper owners or those kids at ou.

[ONeill]

Racism means you don't agree with their agenda or are a political enemy. It just happens to be the worst thing that can be said about someone right now (you are better off being called a pedophile in some circumstances.) So the term is thrown around as a way to label someone when debate, facts, or logic won't work. You are "racist" so your arguments, or the facts, don't matter. You don't agree with Obama or the far-left agenda so you are a racist. Q.E.D.

This is because these days, at least in the USA and much of Western Europe, if you are are racist (or at least said something racist) you will almost be treated worse in the press than a pedophile or if you actually committing physical harm against someone. Words matter more than deeds to these people. Even if it was said in private, was a joke, or whatever. Compare the treatment of super-rich pedophile Epstein (was and in some cases still is taking trips around with Clinton, some Royal, famous rich people etc and the press isn't touching that story) with the treatment of super-rich guy like the Clipper owners or those kids at ou.

+1

[136 or 142]

And what your boss did is statistically irrelevant. I have read plenty of reports about employers cutting hours so that they can avoid Obamacare. Also the jobs structure is not looking good for the US economy, you guys are creating plenty of low-paying, low-skill jobs.

1.The reports you've read are anecdotal so they are also statistically irrelevant.  These are the facts:
As of May 2013, there were 116,238,000 full time workers/jobs and 27,699,000 part time workers/jobs, for a total of 143,937 (143.94 million). From January 2000 to May 2013, the U.S. added 3,049,000 full-time jobs and 4,466,000 part-time jobs, a total of 7,515,000 jobs.

2.The increase in part time jobs is a world wide phenomenon that is also affecting Western Europe, Canada and Australia among others and is tied to technological changes.  Very unlikely 'Obamacare' has much to do with it in the United States even if corporate executives lie that is the reason they are hiring part time workers.

[136 or 142]

Racism means you don't agree with their agenda or are a political enemy. It just happens to be the worst thing that can be said about someone right now (you are better off being called a pedophile in some circumstances.) So the term is thrown around as a way to label someone when debate, facts, or logic won't work. You are "racist" so your arguments, or the facts, don't matter. You don't agree with Obama or the far-left agenda so you are a racist. Q.E.D.

And Rethuglicans constantly throw out that those who disagree with them are Anti American or Anti Religion.

[albrecht]

1.The reports you've read are anecdotal so they are also statistically irrelevant.  These are the facts:
As of May 2013, there were 116,238,000 full time workers/jobs and 27,699,000 part time workers/jobs, for a total of 143,937 (143.94 million). From January 2000 to May 2013, the U.S. added 3,049,000 full-time jobs and 4,466,000 part-time jobs, a total of 7,515,000 jobs.

2.The increase in part time jobs is a world wide phenomenon that is also affecting Western Europe, Canada and Australia among others and is tied to technological changes.  Very unlikely 'Obamacare' has much to do with it in the United States even if corporate executives lie that is the reason they are hiring part time workers.

Although it has clearly increased under the Obama doctrine of open-borders etc this phenomena of more jobs going to immigrants and more people going to part-time etc is happening in many Western countries due to the awful immigration policies and spending and collusion with large companies who like immigration for cheap(er) labor. Just a few stories (note the "right-wing" sources like the Huffington Post.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/texas-jobs-immigrants_n_976068.html
http://www.thelocal.se/jobs/article/most-new-jobs-in-sweden-go-to-immigrants
http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/Briefingpaper/document/32
http://news.yahoo.com/tennessees-employment-growth-since-2000-gone-immigrants-yet-090000882.htm
http://www.cis.org/who-got-jobs-during-obama-presidency

[albrecht]

And Rethuglicans constantly throw out that those who disagree with them are Anti American or Anti Religion.

But being "anti-American" or "anti-religion" is hardly an insult in this society currently, especially if someone harbors a more left-of-center sentimentality and especially in the mainstream of media and culture. Actually it is often worn as a badge of honor.

[VtaGeezer]

Cap'n Crunch McCain tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube:

Politico 3/12/2015 - "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Republicans â€" many of whom blessed the missive during a brisk signing session at a Senate lunch a week ago, as senators prepared to flee a Washington snowstorm â€" should have given it closer consideration.
“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm,” McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”

[albrecht]

Cap'n Crunch McCain tries to put the toothpaste back in the tube:

Politico 3/12/2015 - "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said Republicans â€" many of whom blessed the missive during a brisk signing session at a Senate lunch a week ago, as senators prepared to flee a Washington snowstorm â€" should have given it closer consideration.
“It was kind of a very rapid process. Everybody was looking forward to getting out of town because of the snowstorm,” McCain said. “I think we probably should have had more discussion about it, given the blowback that there is.”

Using Cap'n Crunch to refer to McCain not only insults the cereal but also the famous phone phreaker and hacker. I wish they all the politicians, and especially the regulators and bureaucrats, would get away from Washington more often. I don't care if the reason is global warming (snow) or more golf or vacations (Obama.) Usually the less done there, the better.

[136 or 142]

Although it has clearly increased under the Obama doctrine of open-borders etc this phenomena of more jobs going to immigrants and more people going to part-time etc is happening in many Western countries due to the awful immigration policies and spending and collusion with large companies who like immigration for cheap(er) labor. Just a few stories (note the "right-wing" sources like the Huffington Post.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/texas-jobs-immigrants_n_976068.html
http://www.thelocal.se/jobs/article/most-new-jobs-in-sweden-go-to-immigrants
http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/Briefingpaper/document/32
http://news.yahoo.com/tennessees-employment-growth-since-2000-gone-immigrants-yet-090000882.htm
http://www.cis.org/who-got-jobs-during-obama-presidency

Most of the increase in population, certainly in Sweden and in parts of the United States is due to immigration.  So, I'm not sure that actually proves much.

[VtaGeezer]

Although it has clearly increased under the Obama doctrine of open-borders etc this phenomena of more jobs going to immigrants and more people going to part-time etc is happening in many Western countries due to the awful immigration policies and spending and collusion with large companies who like immigration for cheap(er) labor. Just a few stories (note the "right-wing" sources like the Huffington Post.)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/22/texas-jobs-immigrants_n_976068.html
http://www.thelocal.se/jobs/article/most-new-jobs-in-sweden-go-to-immigrants
http://www.migrationwatchuk.co.uk/Briefingpaper/document/32
http://news.yahoo.com/tennessees-employment-growth-since-2000-gone-immigrants-yet-090000882.htm
http://www.cis.org/who-got-jobs-during-obama-presidency

You don't get it.  White people don't have enough babies, and workers have to come from somewhere.

[PB the Deplorable]

Again, I get there may be some context issues you do not get, but this was sarcasm towards Paper*Boy's bluffing attempt at one-upping me.

If you read his posts going back years, he has had nothing but vitriol toward Obama; vitriol which has seen some Freudian slips into obvious racism. 

Not only that, but has made dire predictions about the Obama economy (like "debasing the currency"; "Weimar type inflation";  "massive unemployment" and economic depression) that, a quick glance at CNBC will tell you, were ALL wrong but he won't confess to it.

He predicted Obamacare would "bankrupt the economy" and "lead to massive job losses" when, in fact, the opposite is true: small businesses no longer have to deal with healthcare benefit issues and can use capital to expand business, like my boss did, and the Congressional Budget Office has recently posted revised DOWNWARD the costs of Obamacare over the next 20 years.

He predicted that Obama was going to "take away his rights", including his rights to own firearms. When? Six years in it hasn't happened yet. What rights have been abridged? Certainly not his right to post fiction as fact!

So, before you hitch your wagon to that train to Neverland, please do a little research as to who is who before casting such aspersions.   Thank you.

And thank you again for complementing my masculinity in a previous post...

Do you really think we can borrow money at the levels we have been over the past two administrations (Bush II doubled the National Debt from around $5.5 Trillion to around $11 Trillion, and under Obama it's now over $18 Trillion), print more under QE I, II, III, create a new 'entitlement' (ObamaCare), import more and more poor unskilled people and make them eligible for all the benefits of our welfare system, continue to ignore the ever growing unfunded future liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, federal pensions, and now ObamaCare) that is now estimated at somewhere north of $100 Trillion - and that's just federal (not to mention the various states, cities, counties, water/fire/school/parks/etc districts that are in the same boat) - do you really think we are going to escape economic disaster?

If you do, could you be so kind to explain how, because some of us are a bit concerned

[PB the Deplorable]

... If you read his posts going back years, he has had nothing but vitriol toward Obama; vitriol which has seen some Freudian slips into obvious racism...

Yes, it's true.  I have nothing but contempt for Barack Obama, and despise him more than any other politician in my lifetime.

But it's not 'racism' - as much as you seem to want it to be - the former title holder for Most Despised was Ted Kennedy.

[PB the Deplorable]

Man-Boy's comments on Muslims not only border on rascism/prejudice but are the definition of racism and prejudice.

I freely admit, for the most part these are not my favorite people.

We've been attacked, and continue to be attacked.  While there are relatively few actual members of terror gangs, far too many - seemingly a large majority - support their actions or are at least ambivalent, and are anti-western and anti-US.

Those who come here mostly do so for economic opportunity and to flee from the society they came from.  And that's fine, except that they - like too many others from other places - start right in wanting us to change our society, laws, and customs for them.  The Muslims are the worst offenders of this.

So fuck that.


When it comes to National Security, things get a little more serious.  My point is, when it comes to Muslims especially, we don't know who is a valid immigrant, and who is here to do us harm.  Why invite trouble - we didn't allow German or Japanese immigration when we were fighting the Nazi's and Imperial Japan and this is no different

And it depends on where they are from.  Muslims in places far from war zones, like Indonesia, Malaysia, and Morocco have not been radicalized and aren't anti-Western. The good people of Iran have already been discussed.  The Kurds are our allies, or would be  if our foreign policy was in the hands of someone competent.  Importing Muslims from places like Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Libya, Chechnya and areas around Chechnya, and even Saudi Arabia is a bad bet.

Think of that what you will.  By the way, what 'race' is Islam?

[albrecht]

Most of the increase in population, certainly in Sweden and in parts of the United States is due to immigration.  So, I'm not sure that actually proves much.

Instead of growing employment for citizens they are importing labor, often at decreased wages, so the native population has less, or lowering paying, jobs and causing social conflict, terrorism, etc as often the immigrants don't share common values, culture, religion, or anything with the citizens.

In the USA the probably is a little more nuanced as the primary victims, so far, of the immigration racket is either in a certain sector (software and hardware programming, especially if you are an older worker) or, more frequently, in the minor community (especially the black community.) So the irony is that we have the "first black President" and his open-border policies are making the lives of black worse (in terms of employment.)

[albrecht]

You don't get it.  White people don't have enough babies, and workers have to come from somewhere.

Partially true, not in the USA, but likely in places like Italy (and Russia) with regard to native birthrate. But this implies that all those jobs are necessary (and couldn't be replaced by automation, outsourcing, or better management practices or simply shouldn't exist due to low demand for them) or that those jobs wouldn't be fulfilled if a higher wage was offered by citizens.

It also ignores the fact that for the lower-paying immigrant jobs (the most usual kind that is causing concern) the open-border and immigration policy in Western countries is really a scheme to socialize the costs and privatize the rewards. Which is why I find it odd that leftists are so pro-immigrant, pro-illegal, and pro-openborders.

The businesses (and rich people) get cheap labor, the citizens get less jobs and more crime and social conflict, and the government taxes everyone -but especially middle-class and small businesses who can't write loop-holes- to provide benefits (schools, housing assistance, food programs, day-care, cell phones, healthcare, etc) to the poor people and the low-paid immigrants (depending on the country this could be quite a bit, or less, depending on their social welfare and immigration scheme.)