# Bush & Tom Ridge Want To Amnesty 12 Million Illegals - Isn't This Treason? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 24, 2003, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809 "2003-12-24T07:28:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![eponymous](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e0b2c6/32.png) [@eponymous](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eponymous)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/221 "2004-01-05T00:10:20Z")
## quote: ## Originally posted by Razorsharp You must have missed it. Here goes again. Whites are the only group that the Supreme Court has sanctioned institutionalized discrimination against. Hmm, maybe you can help me out here. IANAL, but I seem to recall that the Supreme Court had (from a historical perspective) upheld cases that instititutionalized discrimination against non-whites. Remember the Dred Scott case? Or what about the case that was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education (I can’t remember the name)? You know, the “seperate but equal” decision that pretty much gave free reign to Jim Crow laws throughout the country (and in particular in the South)? I would very much like to know the _specific_ cases that the Supreme Court has upheld which sanctions institutionalized discrimination against whites. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/222 "2004-01-05T11:16:01Z")
The case you’re thinking of is _Plessy v. Ferguson_, which introduced the “separate but equal” doctrine. **eponymous** , **Razorsharp** will probably respond by mentioning cases that have upheld Affirmative Action, at least in principle. And I guess he’s got a point if you consider the decisions in a vacuum instead of looking at the historical context in which they were made. That is, if you can ignore the fact that minorities in America have often been deprived of their rights, it’s clear that Affirmative Action is some sort of evil anti-White plot. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [January 5, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/223 "2004-01-05T22:40:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > **Entirely false. Profiling is acceptable based on the history of the _actions_ of anyone.** “Entirely false”??? Man, I gotta hand it to ya, you’ve really got some chutzpah, to post such nonsense with a straight-face. Being that “profiling is acceptable based on history”, is that why eighty-year-old grandmothers are receiving the same scrutiny as thirty-something Arab males when boarding airliners? > [@](#): > > **Racial profiling is a lazy way to simply stop black males, pulling them over for “driving while black” when there is not even a crime of which they may be accused.** You are interjecting a “red herring” into the discussion. > [@](#): > > **If you take the time to read the _entire_ profile, you will find that John Allen Muhammad fits most of the profile criteria–including his being quick to anger, his recent problems with employment, etc.** Except for his most obvious identifying trait, his race. Nooooo… they were all looking for a white man. See, the only time it is acceptable to profile by race, is if the suspect is believed to be white. It’s documented; liberalism poses a danger to society. > [@](#): > > **As it happens, the overwhelming majority of serial killers in the U.S. have been white males, so looking for white males fits the overall profile.** I agree with that statement, but, it’s a non-sequitor in that it does nothing to refute the fact that the only group deemed acceptable to racially profile, are whites. > [@](#): > > \*\* (And you are demonstrating your dishonesty, again, regarding the “pickup.” There were, as you noted, several vehicles erroneously identified as having been in the area at the times of various shootings. However, you lied when you said that the “pickup” (and the “redneck” claim) were part of the profile.\*\* Perhaps not part of the “official” profile, but I recall a supposition of “ex-military with a high degree of marksmanship”, and from this, the conjecture of a “militia type”. Now, when the media mentions “militia type”, are not the majority of “telescreen watchers” brainwashed to form the mental image of what fits the media’s presentation of “militia-type”? > [@](#): > > **So you really don’t even know who is white?** Yeah, I do. Magic Johnson is black, Larry Byrd is white. Disagree? Which lends me another opportunity to exploit the double-standard of liberalism. Basketball Hall of Famer, Isaiah Thomas, of the Detroit Pistons, once remarked, “If Boston Celtics forward Larry Byrd, another Hall of Famer, were black, he would be considered just an average basketball player.” Isaiah Thomas, an American of African decent, in his commentary on Larry Byrd, publicly insinuated that even the best white athletes have just the average ability of black athletes. Why was it that no one demanded that Isaiah Thomas be fined and undergo psychological counseling, or re-education, a la John Rocker? Please forgive the rhetorical question. The answer is that the scourge known as “Political Correctness” that currently infects America, once known as the land of “freedom of speech”, is nothing less than institutionalized “thought control” designed specifically to be applied to conservative Americans, who still embrace the traditional American values of individualism, freedom and liberty. Its purpose is to silence their protests of the socialization and globalization of the last genuinely free country that remains in the world today. > [@](#): > > **The Supreme Court has never really _defined_ what “white” means, so your claim is bogus (Not to mention the whole string of Supreme Court decisions stretching all the way back to _Bakke_ in which the Court ruled that one could _not_ discriminate against a person because he was white.** The Court didn’t have to define white, all they had to do was allow discrimination in the reaching of “certain objectives”. In other words, Universities are allowed to discriminate on the objective criteria of race, although you continually deny the existance of race. > [@](#): > > **As to the Carr brothers: they are barbaric slime, but your claim that torture is somehow not associated with robbery is put to the lie by the following stories (among many others) and you have done nothing to prove the “hate crime” except note that the perpetrators and victims were different.** No, what I was doing, in mentioning the Carr brothers, was demonstrating how the public is brainwashed in their perception of who the “haters” are. See, had the Carr brothers been white and their victims black, the media, as recent history would indicate, would have given the rapes and murders much more publicity and would have painted the criminals as " racist haters" in their furtherence of instilling a sense of collective guilt among whites. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*Boy, Razor, you just _love_ them stereotypes, don’t you? You’ve described some kind of stereotypical “liberals” who seem to be divorced (or at legally seperated) from reality, and then you’re repeatedly accusing us of being members of their sewing circle. > > Well, you’re wrong. You’re completely wrong. You couldn’t be more wrong if your butt was on backwards. > > Your tactics, though, are fairly easy to understand as an attempt to force people who disagree with you to go on the defensive. I even did the same, by repeatedly asking you to define “white”, knowing there was no answer you could give that couldn’t be challenged. The difference is that my tactics are supported by your statements, while your tactics are supported by nothing. \*\* Yeah, as though liberals don’t paint conservatives with the same broad stroke. They love to dish it out, but listen to them squeal when they get a dose of their own medicine. There is no point of giving a personal definition of “white”, other than helping you to construct a strawman. So, let me serve it back to you. Are you saying that there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race? Of course, the lines between the races are blurred due to miscegenation, but that does not refute the existance of the different races. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by sturmhauke and Gorilla Man \* > \*\*Maybe if we break it down nice and simple you can actually answer the question in specific terms: > > Which of the following nationalities or ethnicities may be included under the heading “white”? > > Feel free to add or subtract any you feel are pertinent. \*\* I realize that you two probably think of yourselves as clever, but I find your “question” to be both disengenuous and simple. As for your list, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic would be most indicative of those considered “white”. As for the rest of the “nationalities or ethnicities” in the list, to claim that any were of a particular race, would open one up to “exceptions to the rule”. Liberals often have to rely on exceptions to the rule for “proof”. As one could logically say that China was a Asian country, a liberal would point to a single community of Europeons in China, to “prove” the contrary, and would expect to be taken seriously. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by eponymous \* > \*\* > Hmm, maybe you can help me out here. IANAL, but I seem to recall that the Supreme Court had (from a historical perspective) upheld cases that instititutionalized discrimination against non-whites. > > Remember the Dred Scott case? Or what about the case that was overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education (I can’t remember the name)? You know, the “seperate but equal” decision that pretty much gave free reign to Jim Crow laws throughout the country (and in particular in the South)? > > I would very much like to know the _specific_ cases that the Supreme Court has upheld which sanctions institutionalized discrimination against whites. \*\* You’re right, once upon a time, discrimination was openly practiced in America, but in the context of this thread, institutionalized discrimination is supposed to be a thing of the past and even a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which states that, no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,”. But, equal treatment didn’t work out like it was envisioned, so now, society is supposed to accept “reverse discrimination” in the form of the pleasant sounding name of “affirmative action” in the quest of faux “equality”. BTW: I believe that the recent Supreme Court case that decreed that discrimination on the basis of race was acceptable, was Grutter v. Bollinger. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the University of Michigan law school’s policy of considering race in deciding which students to accept. In “considering race”, the U of M was giving preference to “minorities”. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Marley23 \* > **That is, if you can ignore the fact that minorities in America have often been deprived of their rights, it’s clear that Affirmative Action is some sort of evil anti-White plot.** Well, I’ll tell you, it most certainly is looked upon as evil by those who have never practiced discrimination against anyone, but their government is permitting overt discrimination against them in an effort to right a wrong., In these instances, “Affirmative Action” is tantamount to “two wrongs DO make a right”. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/224 "2004-01-06T00:10:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > Basketball Hall of Famer, Isaiah Thomas, of the Detroit Pistons, once remarked, “If Boston Celtics forward Larry Byrd, another Hall of Famer, were black, he would be considered just an average basketball player.” > > Isaiah Thomas, an American of African decent, in his commentary on Larry Byrd, publicly insinuated that even the best white athletes have just the average ability of black athletes. > > Why was it that no one demanded that Isaiah Thomas be fined and undergo psychological counseling, or re-education, a la John Rocker? > > Please forgive the rhetorical question. Only if you’ll forgive the subsequent analysis that shows the parallel to be nonsense. Thomas and Bird have a well-established rivalry going back a number of years (the latest chapter being Bird firing Thomas from a coaching position at the Indiana Pacers). Whether Thomas’s original remark was facetious or malicious, his personal relationship with Bird makes me disinclined to view Thomas’s remark as political. Compare this to John Rocker’s statement from the infamous _Sports illustrated_ interview: > [@](#): > > The biggest thing I don’t like about New York are the foreigners. I’m not a very big fan of foreigners. You can walk an entire block in Times Square and not hear anybody speaking English. Asians and Koreans and Vietnamese and Indians and Russians and Spanish people and everything up there. How the hell did they get into this country? There seems a pretty obvious difference between Thomas taking a shot at Bird, and Rocker taking a shot at immigrants. Rocker’s hate-filled rhetoric reminds me of, well, you. > [@](#): > > The answer is that the scourge known as “Political Correctness” that currently infects America, once known as the land of “freedom of speech”, is nothing less than institutionalized “thought control” designed specifically to be applied to conservative Americans, who still embrace the traditional American values of individualism, freedom and liberty. Its purpose is to silence their protests of the socialization and globalization of the last genuinely free country that remains in the world today. Well, aren’t _you_ the poor widdle victim? As for the ridiculous nonsense that the U.S. is the “last genuinely free country” (that just makes me want to chuckle and wave a Canadian flag), I’ll have to point out that for most of its history (and arguably even now), the U.S. _wasn’t_ genuinely free for large segments of its own population. What’s the matter? The coloured people getting too uppity for your tastes? Maybe they should just accept their proper place in society and shut up. You haven’t proven that American whites (whoever they are) are being oppressed in any way. You _might_ be demonstrating that certain society-granted advantages are being whittled away, though. In the meantime, you seem free enough to express your opinion, so how have your protests been silenced? > [@](#): > > Yeah, as though liberals don’t paint conservatives with the same broad stroke. They love to dish it out, but listen to them squeal when they get a dose of their own medicine. Well, there you go again, trotting out your stereotype. I don’t think anyone here is ‘squealing’. Do you? Sure you can go out and _find_ squealers easily enough, but you can find individuals saying all kinds of things these days. It proves nothing, except possibly that free speech is alive and well. > [@](#): > > There is no point of giving a personal definition of “white”, other than helping you to construct a strawman. So, let me serve it back to you. Are you saying that there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race? Of course, the lines between the races are blurred due to miscegenation, but that does not refute the existance of the different races. Yes, I am saying that there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race. The are rough and somewhat arbitrary _categories_ that many people can be put into, but the defining lines between such categories are nonexistent. “Miscegenation” is a pointlessly circular argument: you claim there are races with definable differences; then try to explain away borderline cases by claiming racial mixing, which assumes the claim (races exist) before you’ve proven it. From what I’ve observed, so-called “racial” characteristics are quite trivial and superficial. With a harsh filtering process, you can _make_ them significant, though, as in professional sports. I could imagine a correlation between so-called “black” features and certain slight advantages in muscle strength or speed. Trim away 99.999% of the population, and you get an NBA where most of the players have dark skin. Trying to use that or a similarly biased sample to prove a political point to apply to all citizens, though, is a mistake. It’s an _easy_ mistake, mind you, and when your argument consists of nothing but rhetoric, it might be all you have. > [@](#): > > I realize that you two probably think of yourselves as clever, but I find your “question” to be both disengenuous and simple. > > As for your list, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic would be most indicative of those considered “white”. As for the rest of the “nationalities or ethnicities” in the list, to claim that any were of a particular race, would open one up to “exceptions to the rule”. Liberals often have to rely on exceptions to the rule for “proof”. Actually, you seem to be on the verge of making a claim that “white” somehow exists as a definable race. If that had any scientific merit, exceptions wouldn’t exist. You would be able to define some set of characteristics such that if a person had all of them (or none of them), that person would definitely be ‘white’. Trouble is, of course, that even among the Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic groups, there are individuals who vary from the average, some to an extreme. How much variance is allowed before one stops being ‘white’, despite having white ancestors going back generations? I don’t see why “Liberals” enter into it. Just having respect for logic, statistics and the scientific method would be enough to challenge any definition you could give. > [@](#): > > As one could logically say that China was a Asian country, a liberal would point to a single community of Europeons in China, to “prove” the contrary, and would expect to be taken seriously. Well, China _is_ an Asian country in the sense that it is located in Asia. There have been longstanding cultural barriers to immigration, so arguably China is as “pure” as most countries get. Another way to describe them might be “inbred”, though this description somehow lacks appeal. Go figure. Now, there _are_ communities of people descended from Europeans in the sense you seem to mean, as small (possibly inbred) enclaves. The Portuguese colony of Macau is the most famous, I guess, having been founded on the periphery of China in the 1600s and waxed and waned ever since. By now, Portuguese genetic markers have no doubt slipped into the surrounding population. Now, if you wanted to define “Asian country” as “a country populated only members of an Asian race”, well, then you have a problem. I doubt you could come up with a firm definition of an Asian race and more than you could define a white race. In fact, I get the impression you’re trying to point out that “liberals” make ignorant statements, but your approach seems to involve making ignorant statements of your own. > [@](#): > > But, equal treatment didn’t work out like it was envisioned, so now, society is supposed to accept “reverse discrimination” in the form of the pleasant sounding name of “affirmative action” in the quest of faux “equality”. I hate to burst your bubble, but _nothing_ works out like it was envisioned. Santa Claus isn’t real, either. As far as I can tell, the only approach to _really_ eliminating racism is let young people interact and learn that all the generalizations and stereotypes their parents spoke of were crap. Then the older generation dies off, and the very notion of engaging in open racism becomes foreign and old-fashioned. Personally, though I think affirmative action should be dumped, simply because I prefer a purely merit-based approach. > [@](#): > > Well, I’ll tell you, it most certainly is looked upon as evil by those who have never practiced discrimination against anyone, but their government is permitting overt discrimination against them in an effort to right a wrong., In these instances, “Affirmative Action” is tantamount to “two wrongs DO make a right”. Compared to, say, closing the borders to immigration entirely? Yeah, that wrong will _really_ set things right. You have some valid points in being suspicious of affirmative action, or similar programs that seek to give advantages based on arbitrary characteristics, but they’re mixed in with such racist bullshit and preposterous misconceptions that the resistance you’ve encountered here surprises me not at all. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/225 "2004-01-06T01:29:22Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > **As for your list, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic would be most indicative of those considered “white”. As for the rest of the “nationalities or ethnicities” in the list, to claim that any were of a particular race, would open one up to “exceptions to the rule”. Liberals often have to rely on exceptions to the rule for “proof”.** That leaves out the Irish, Scots, Welsh, the French, Spaniards, Italians, Czechs, Slovaks, Russians, Ukranians, Poles, Greeks, Macedonians, Italians, Portugese, Albanians, Hungarians, Serbians, and Bulgarians as white then. Crap, I have to go tell my German mom that my Scots-Irish and Cherokee dad isn’t white! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/226 "2004-01-06T07:38:13Z")
As I posted earlier, my ancestors are for all over the damn world. So what race does that make me? Have I no race? Am I some sort of pitiful mongrel, bereft of all sense of self, culture, and pride? If race is so clearly delineated and obvious, why is it that different people look at me and think I’m Hispanic, or Native American, or Jewish, or white, or any number of things? If people such as me exist, how is race at all a useful definition? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/227 "2004-01-06T11:13:49Z")
> [@](#): > > although you continually deny the existance of race. I’m not sure whether this statement is another of your lies or simply the confusion of someone who cannot deal with reality. I have never stated that race does not exist; I have simply noted (and provided evidence to the point) that it is a social construct that has been defined differently on several occasions because it lacks an objective, independent reality. Certainly, once someone chooses to construct a definition for it (as you have fled from doing), it can be used in a real sense. People are often denied housing and jobs based on another person’s perception of “race.” There is the reality; it is a fuzzy concept that allows people who enjoy hating to focus their hatred on and to express their hatred toward differing groups at different times. > [@](#): > > “Entirely false”??? Man, I gotta hand it to ya, you’ve really got some chutzpah, to post such nonsense with a straight-face. Being that “profiling is acceptable based on history”, is that why eighty-year-old grandmothers are receiving the same scrutiny as thirty-something Arab males when boarding airliners? We have exactly two incidents of terrorism in the U.S. in which Middle-Eastern men were involved. We also have a number of incidents of terrorism in which “white” guys were involved. There is no established history that indicates that any person from the Middle East is more likely to be a terrorist in the U.S… Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), Jose Padilla, (the street thug that Ashcroft pretends is a terrorist), and John Walker Lind (the “American Taliban”) don’t have a drop of Middle East blood among the three of them. (Not to mention our most successful home-grown terrorist, Tim McVeigh.) Regarding Muhammad: > [@](#): > > Except for his most obvious identifying trait, his race. Nooooo… they were all looking for a white man. See, the only time it is acceptable to profile by race, is if the suspect is believed to be white. You really like to ignore the obvious, don’t you? If 99% of serial killers are white males and you want to profile serial killers, you need to include the “white” part. This means that your profile will probably miss 1% of the potential serial killers. The fact that this profile failed to guess Muhammad’s appearance might lead one to conclude that profiling does not work or that profiling is imperfect, but there is no logical reason to claim that we should include blacks in a profile of an activity that is predominantly a white activity. You are just whining, now. > [@](#): > > No, what I was doing, in mentioning the Carr brothers, was demonstrating how the public is brainwashed in their perception of who the “haters” are. See, had the Carr brothers been white and their victims black, the media, as recent history would indicate, would have given the rapes and murders much more publicity and would have painted the criminals as " racist haters" in their furtherence of instilling a sense of collective guilt among whites. I realize that you get a warm sense of persecution and hatred when you spout this stuff, but failing the presentation of _evidence_, you are simply making it up. Not one of the three survivors of the Carr attacks mentioned _any_ anti-white rhetoric. One of the brothers had a white girlfriend. They were simply scum who happened to have hit on the majority population when selecting their victims. No “hate crime” motive is legitimately ascribed to them. The murderers of Mr. Boyd selected him to be a victim _because_ he was black. > [@](#): > > As for your list, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic would be most indicative of those considered “white”. Ahh! The old mythical “Aryan” folk (with the odd exclusion of the Celts among all the other peoples who have been called “white” from the 18th to the early 20th century). Why am I not surprised? ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 11:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/228 "2004-01-06T11:21:04Z")
> [@](#): > > although you continually deny the existance of race. I’m not sure whether this statement is another of your lies or simply the confusion of someone who cannot deal with reality. I have never stated that race does not exist; I have simply noted (and provided evidence to the point) that it is a social construct that has been defined differently on several occasions because it lacks an objective, independent reality. Certainly, once someone chooses to construct a definition for it (as you have fled from doing), it can be used in a real sense. People are often denied housing and jobs based on another person’s perception of “race.” There is the reality; it is a fuzzy concept that allows people who enjoy hating to focus their hatred on and to express their hatred toward differing groups at different times. > [@](#): > > “Entirely false”??? Man, I gotta hand it to ya, you’ve really got some chutzpah, to post such nonsense with a straight-face. Being that “profiling is acceptable based on history”, is that why eighty-year-old grandmothers are receiving the same scrutiny as thirty-something Arab males when boarding airliners? We have exactly two incidents of terrorism in the U.S. in which Middle-Eastern men were involved. We also have a number of incidents of terrorism in which “white” guys were involved. There is no established history that indicates that any person from the Middle East is more likely to be a terrorist in the U.S… Richard Reid (the shoe bomber), Jose Padilla, (the street thug that Ashcroft pretends is a terrorist), and John Walker Lind (the “American Taliban”) don’t have a drop of Middle East blood among the three of them. (Not to mention our most successful home-grown terrorist, Tim McVeigh.) Regarding Muhammad: > [@](#): > > Except for his most obvious identifying trait, his race. Nooooo… they were all looking for a white man. See, the only time it is acceptable to profile by race, is if the suspect is believed to be white. You really like to ignore the obvious, don’t you? If 99% of serial killers are white males and you want to profile serial killers, you need to include the “white” part. This means that your profile will probably miss 1% of the potential serial killers. The fact that this profile failed to guess Muhammad’s appearance might lead one to conclude that profiling does not work or that profiling is imperfect, but there is no logical reason to claim that we should include blacks in a profile of an activity that is predominantly a white activity. You are just whining, now. > [@](#): > > No, what I was doing, in mentioning the Carr brothers, was demonstrating how the public is brainwashed in their perception of who the “haters” are. See, had the Carr brothers been white and their victims black, the media, as recent history would indicate, would have given the rapes and murders much more publicity and would have painted the criminals as " racist haters" in their furtherence of instilling a sense of collective guilt among whites. I realize that you get a warm sense of persecution and hatred when you spout this stuff, but failing the presentation of _evidence_, you are simply making it up. Not one of the three survivors of the Carr attacks mentioned _any_ anti-white rhetoric. One of the brothers had a white girlfriend. They were simply scum who happened to have hit on the majority population when selecting their victims. No “hate crime” motive is legitimately ascribed to them. The murderers of Mr. Boyd selected him to be a victim _because_ he was black. > [@](#): > > As for your list, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic and Germanic would be most indicative of those considered “white”. Ahh! The old mythical “Aryan” folk (with the odd exclusion of the Celts among all the other peoples who have been called “white” from the 18th to the early 20th century). Why am I not surprised? ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 1:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/229 "2004-01-06T13:37:22Z")
[QUOTE] \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > You really like to ignore the obvious, don’t you? If 99% of serial killers are white males and you want to profile serial killers, you need to include the “white” part. This means that your profile will probably miss 1% of the potential serial killers. The fact that this profile failed to guess Muhammad’s appearance might lead one to conclude that profiling does not work or that profiling is imperfect, but there is no logical reason to claim that we should include blacks in a profile of an activity that is predominantly a white activity. You are just whining, now.\*\* What you have to ignore, in support of the party-line, is that there is not supposed to be any profiling by race. > [@](#): > > **I realize that you get a warm sense of persecution and hatred when you spout this stuff, but failing the presentation of _evidence_, you are simply making it up. Not one of the three survivors of the Carr attacks mentioned _any_ anti-white rhetoric. One of the brothers had a white girlfriend. They were simply scum who happened to have hit on the majority population when selecting their victims. No “hate crime” motive is legitimately ascribed to them.** Again, you are parroting the party-line in insisting that “robbery” was the motive. The victims were sexually abused for over two hours before being taken to an ATM machine for the “robbery”. > [@](#): > > Unlike the Byrd murder, however, the Wichita massacre received little national exposure, largely because the victims were white. That means no Jesse Jackson screaming into his megaphone about how the government needs to wipe out racial violence. And no Rev. Al Sharpton fulminating into his power horn about the need for a special category of law dealing with racially-motivated crimes. Hardly anyone even raised an eyebrow when Wichita officials declined to try the case as a hate crime. > Had the victims been four black people killed by two white assailants, the hate crime prophets would have come streaming into Kansas carrying the national media in tow. Yet, when an equally savage and racially-motivated crime is perpetrated against white people, the response is muted. > Apparently, the supporters of hate crime legislation are concerned with only stemming racially-motivated violence against blacks. This inconsistency suggests that hate crime legislation is not about justice. After all, the law covers the crime of murder. Hate crime legislation is not about redressing inequality, or it would be equally concerned with all racially-motivated crimes. Hate crime is about twisting the law to accommodate the all-encompassing view that blacks are forever victims of whites. It’s about how whites can never truly empathize with the first-hand effects of racial injustice. It’s about the politically correct view that racial injustice is “a black thing.” > [http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20021023.shtml](http://www.townhall.com/columnists/Armstrongwilliams/aw20021023.shtml) ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/230 "2004-01-06T17:07:13Z")
> [@](#): > > What you have to ignore, in support of the party-line, is that there is not supposed to be any profiling by race. Despite your aggrieved cries, it is not “profiling byu race.” Washington sniper profile: 50 - 100 data points describing personality, probable work record, types of displays of anger, probable age, probable sex, etc., including the single data point that the person is probably white. (And every data point except the color was true.) Immigration profile: Sex and possible Missle East origin. (Except that we exclude “allies” such as Saudi Arabia which was the home to the majority of the hijackers on 9/11.) DWB profile: black driver in (or remotely near) “white” neigborhood. > [@](#): > > Again, you are parroting the party-line in insisting that “robbery” was the motive. The victims were sexually abused for over two hours before being taken to an ATM machine for the “robbery”. Again, you are parroting _your_ party line. The Carr’s were guilty of multiple robberies and assaults against a number of people over the course of time. (They were also the victims of physical and sexual abuse, themselves, which does nothing to mitigate their actions, but may explain some of their motivation.) Given that none of their victims have reported “racial” language or anything resembling racial motive, you are simply siezing on the difference in races between the perpetrators and the victims to claim a motive with no evidence. The prosecutor did not ask for lenience because they were poor, abused black kids–he sought trhe death penalty. (And your columnist , Mr. Armstrong, is guilty of the same thing. The prosecutor sought the death penalty for the Carrs based on the horrific nature of their actions. There was no need to invoke “hate crime” language because there is no evidence of _racial_ motivation.) In the case of Mr. Byrd, we have the testimony of the perpetrators that they did it for racial motives. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/231 "2004-01-06T17:35:36Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Bryan Ekers_ > **Yes, I am saying that there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race.** Well, if " there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race", how does the government arrive at conclusions as these? > [@](#): > > [http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm](http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm) > Table 4. - Number of Known Offenders by Race, 1995 Suspected Offender’s Race Number of Known Offenders > White: 4,991 > Black: 2,253 > American Indian/Alaskan Native: 45 > Asian/Pacific Islander: 211 ---
**Author:** ![Belowjob2.0](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Belowjob2.0](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Belowjob2.0)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/232 "2004-01-06T17:43:21Z")
**is hardly enough to dampen my self-esteem.** Is that what this is about? Your wounded self-esteem? Unfortunately, irrational arguments, overheated rhetoric, and spurious claims aren’t going to do much to boost your self-esteem. One of thing that can boost your self-esteem is real world achievement. Declaring your self a victim of imaginary conspiracies works directly against your capacity to achieve anything. You give yourself a convenient excuse for failure. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 6:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/233 "2004-01-06T18:38:17Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tomndebb_\*\* > Given that none of their victims have reported “racial” language or anything resembling racial motive, you are simply siezing on the difference in races between the perpetrators and the victims to claim a motive with no evidence.\*\* Well, apparently there was language that did resemble a racial motive, and notice that The Witchita Eagle, like you, in defense of the liberal party-line, attempts to mitigate the reference by noting that it was “the night’s only apparent reference to race.” > [@](#): > > Ever been with a black man before? he asked, in the night’s only apparent reference to race. > No, she said. > Did you like it? > He had a gun; she figured saying “yes” would keep him happy. > Too bad we didn’t meet under different circumstances, he said, because you’re kind of cute, "and we might have hit it off. > She told him she wasn’t having a good time that night. > When they went back in the house, both men raped her again. She got a good look at their faces. [http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/4272430.htm](http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/4272430.htm) In instances of inter-racial crime, why to liberal’s go into contortions to deny the possibility of a hate crime being perpetrated by a minority, but search for every possibility of a racial motive in crimes perpetrated by whites? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/234 "2004-01-06T19:16:36Z")
Hey, **Razorsharp** – are you getting some sort of royalty every time you say the word “liberal”, or did Sam’s Club just have a sale on straw? > [@](#): > > **Magic Johnson is black, Larry Byrd is white.** Well spotted. Please have the list of the other six billion on my desk by Friday. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2004, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/235 "2004-01-06T20:07:38Z")
That’s IT? You have one perp in a multiple hour ordeal make one one-line comment wondering about his sexuality and that makes it a racially motivated hate crime? C’mon. Reach a little further, will you? > [@](#): > > but search for every possibility of a racial motive in crimes perpetrated by whites? This is just more of your unsupported hand-waving. From your unidentified “liberals” to your “search for every possibility” you are just making up stuff that you need to believe. Having bought into the invented Aryan race, you now seem to need to buy into lots of inventions. Pretty sad, really. (And, yes, I realize that there are a few people on the other side of the fence who make statements as looney as yours are. There _are_ some “liberals” who look for racism when it not there; there _are_ some people who exalt other “races” over the “white race” (with no better ability to actually define what they are talking about). However, your whole thesis has to do with creating imaginary “liberals” out of straw and making wild claims about what “they” do, pretending that race has some independent reality (even though you cannot even define or describe it except in terms that might make de Gobineau or H. S. Chamberlain–but no serious scientist–happy), and looking for things to get mad about, even when you have to twist the facts in order to make them your _cause célèbre_.) ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/236 "2004-01-07T03:29:42Z")
Barry White is black and Jack Black is white. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/237 "2004-01-07T03:55:25Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*Well, if " there are not different groups that are defined according to the divisions of race", how does the government arrive at conclusions as these? \*\* Becuase race exists as a social construct without any scientific validity. “Race” only has significance because we (well, most of us) say it does. Similarly, a corporation is a legal construct. That doesn’t make it scientifically valid. It’s fairly easy to categorize people most of the time, but in order to have a “group” and make definitive claims about this group, you need a well-defined membership. You can _claim_ white culture is being destroyed by Hollywood, but if you can’t define “white culture” (or even “white”) then how do you prove your case? ---
**Author:** ![greenphan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/c37758/32.png) [@greenphan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenphan)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 6:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/238 "2004-01-07T06:23:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Razorsharp \* > \*\*People often wonder why liberals struggle in the arena of “talk radio”. The answer is really quite simple. > > Listening to the radio requires more intellectual exercise, than watching the “telescreen”. With talk radio, just the words are provided, requiring the listener to translate the words into thoughts that are compatable with the listener’s everyday life experiences. > > Whereas, watching television requires little in intellectual exercise. The watcher is given the words, while the images of the “telescreen” guide the watcher’s thoughts to the “correct” conclusions. \*\* What about NPR? That is liberal talk radio, and very popular talk radio at that. And, in favor of NPR over conservative talk radio, conservative radio hosts (Limbaugh, most notably) revert CONSTANTLY to the very “intellectual” practice of name-calling and demonizing; nothing says intellect more than calling others “stupid”. I do agree with you that watching television provides little intellectual stimulus, thus explaining Fox News and Bill O’Reilly (and, to be fair, every show on CNN). –greenphan ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/239 "2004-01-07T10:40:18Z")
It was enough to expose your dishonesty. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\*Given that none of their victims have reported “racial” language or anything resembling racial motive, \*\* And then you came up with this excuse. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by tomndebb \* > \*\* (They were also the victims of physical and sexual abuse, themselves, which does nothing to mitigate their actions, but may explain some of their motivation.)_\* And Ekers is all bent out of shape over “stereotypes”. Hey, I didn’t create the stereotypes, but some of you sure put on the shoes. ---
**Author:** ![Razorsharp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/53a042/32.png) [@Razorsharp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razorsharp)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2004, 10:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809/240 "2004-01-07T10:54:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bryan Ekers \* > \*\*It’s fairly easy to categorize people most of the time, but in order to have a “group” and make definitive claims about this group, you need a well-defined membership. You can _claim_ white culture is being destroyed by Hollywood, but if you can’t define “white culture” (or even “white”) then how do you prove your case? \*\* Well. answer me this question that I have posed twice before. Why is it that the child of one Black parent and one White parent 99.99% of the time identifies his or herself as black? As for Hollywood’s rendition of reality, do you think that it is just happenstance that, 99.99% of the time, the perpetrators of “hate” are white? Oh, and “malign” would be a better word than “destroy”. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bush-tom-ridge-want-to-amnesty-12-million-illegals-isnt-this-treason/220809.md?page=13)