And I would respond that I never said a single word about the situation in Tibet. I would also add that I would appreciate it if you read my posts before you responded ot them. I would also add that I would appreciate it if you would apologize for spewing such a hateful lie against me. But I’m not going to hold my breath and wait for you to do so.
When the Chinese government kills Tibetan people, that’s bad for Tibetan people. When Hispanic immigrants move to the United States, that’s good for everyone in the United States. Thus, there’s no comparison between the two situations.
So in other words, it does rely on that assumption.
Your scenario is not a possibility, so that doesn’t matter. However, I am a supporter of free constitutional democracy. If your scenario came true, I would support free constitutional democracy.
Let me take this cruel stance… if you don’t like the President for not being conservative enough, then I approve of you choosing to not vote for him.
Because lets face it, nothing entertains me more than Conservative v. Republican flamewars such as ‘Bush really isn’t doing much on immigration’ v. ‘You want President Dean’.
I can see that there is a potential that some terrorists or criminals can come into the country, and that’s not really desirable. If you say Bush really hasn’t done much there, then ok, don’t vote for him. Although, I will say that the general idea of immigrants being lazy and unmotivated to learn our language and whatever is a load of crap. First, there are good reasons to speak Spanish with friends, like if you’re having a private conversation and you don’t want people to know what your talking about. Second, it’s not easy to become a good English speaker. You get some people who probably aren’t comfortable with their English and whatever.
As for stealing jobs. If you’re an American and you want to become a small-time farmer in California, go for it. The only places where I think jobs are going from Americans to Mexicans are the factories that are moving to Mexico.
Anyways, with the scare talk from White nationalist morons about whites being minorities, you’d think that the moment that happens, the genocide begins. But, I’d say that’s just a load a crap. One day people will figure out to stop paying attention to ethnicity or race and start paying attention to more important stuff in their lives.
I will say this… if you don’t wanna vote for the President, don’t do it. While I don’t like the stances by those on the far right, if they can help accomplish something I want (a new President), then good for them. In the long runs of political stuff, we’re all tools in one way or another.
One of the things I love most about internet forums, is how easy it is to reveal the true character of the typical liberal.
Yeah, both the Supreme Court and I. But, of course, you know better.
Just to show you the error in the manner in which you were using the term “invented”.
Here is where you are being deceitful. You intentionally omitted an important part of my reply.
See, I de-emphasized the “group” (race) differences, but you chose to deliberately mischaracterize what I wrote.
Sir, I can no longer tolerate your deceit and dishonesty. However, I have to admit, these little tete-a-tetes with the liberal ilk are entertaining. I liken them to clubbing baby seals. It’s fun, but it’s so easy, that after awhile, it gets boring.
Heck, I hate to lose a bet, so I guess it’s not safe to bet that you are legal immigrants, especially from the fit you are pitching over my lamenting the liberal mis-interpretation of the 14th Amendment, so as to, not only allow, but to encourage through the enticement of citizenship, illegals to birth their offspring on American soil.
Anyways, what’s up with all the concern over Hispanics and Mexicans. Like I said, I never mentioned any race or ethnicity. Surely it wouldn’t be because those are the primary groups that are doing the trespassing and then burdening the American taxpayers with supporting the fruit of their wombs?
Liberals are an odd lot, they will go into an absolute hissy-fit over any accurate portrayal that reveals the inherent degeneracy of their ideology, when name-calling and smearing is their forte.
Let’s examine one of liberalism’s biggest smears.
Mention the term “hate-crime” to the average individual, and he or she will, almost without fail, have the mental image of a White persecuting a minority. That’s what I mean by a “Through the Looking Glass” worldview. However, reality tells a different story.
FBI crime statistics reveal that minorities are several times more likely to commit a “hate-crime” against a White, than the commonly held misperception of minorities being the victims of “hate” perpetrated by Whites.
So, how do you suppose that such commonly held misconceptions occur, other than bordering on diliberate conspiracy?
So, GIGObuster there’s your “Republican vote elimination” post. Make sure you show it to your Republican voting relatives so you can show them the error of their ways. (Yeah, fat chance that you will.)
Que? The rule that birth in the United States confers citizenship (jus soli) is a liberal misinterpretation of the Constitution? That’s what the damn thing says. The interpretation is neither recent nor liberal. It dates back to the 1889 case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, written by Justice Horace Gray, a republican.
In fact, jus soli in the United States is older than the 14th Amendment. The majority points out in Wong Kim, it was the common law rule in effect prior to its passage, and the 14th Amendment merely established it as a constitutional right that could not be abridged.
I’m not sure what you think you accomplished by “de-emphasizing” the genetic aspect of the differences when you continue to cling to the notion that there actually are differences among the races (without being able to characterize or quantify those differences or identify those races). I have not mischaracterized your posts; you are simply attempting to weasel out of the statements that you made.
Race (both the scientific notion that has been discarded as not legitimate or useful and the social construct that is used to enshrine xenophobia in law) is an invention. You have provided no evidence that it is not, simply whining that you are mischaracterized when your words are held up for review.
Feel free to withdraw from the discussion. I find such exchanges simply tedious. Having to debunk the lies of racialists and White Supremacists might have been amusing the first time, but the lies from those camps are always just repeated ad nauseam with no more support thn they had on the first pass. Willfull ignorance is pretty much anathema to The Straight Dope®, and it is taking longer than we thought.
I knew it, you are in a hole and you keep digging.
Denying humanity is your mantra.
The point that you missed was that not all Hispanic-Americans, (and all other minority groups in America) are automatically liberals, see how the majority of them did not vote for Bustamante in the last California election. No, it not safe to bet because specially in my case I fled the old country because of treats related to the civil wars in Central America, back then, Reagan decided something unimportant as the death squads was not an impediment to continue supporting the regimes then.
Funny, if not Hispanics, the typical talking point of some peculiar people like you was that black people were doing that, I found later that that was also a lie.
**
“Squirting” doesn’t sound to me as describing human beings being born, not to mention that they are now Americans, dehumanization is your certified smear here.
**
It goes both ways: hate crimes against whites are also investigated and recorded; it is only in your biased mind that this is a liberal smear.
On the Hispanic side you should meet our local sheriff Arpaio, he doesn’t treat Hispanics that are guilty of those crimes any differently, and neither do I, a crime is a crime, however some crimes have another reason for existing.
**
Conspiracy? As the data shows, it is only in your mind. But, I guess it would be a smear to mention that a close relative was pounded to death recently by skinheads and robbery was not the reason.
Don’t worry, I just gave you the shovel. Also, there is no chance here: you are a liar, and dehumanizing your “enemies” is beyond contempt, good Republicans are ashamed of you.
What exactly is your point? By your own admission and your claimed FBI statistics (the absolute number of black offenders is lower than white offenders, though I imagine the per capita rate is higher), black offenders are being identified (and presumably investigated and prosecuted) as perpetrators. The reality (well, the reality of these statistics; I don’t doubt a number of incidents that could be defined as “hate crimes” go unreported) is that non-whites are (per capita) more likely to offend.
But you want to argue the perception? Well, who gives a fuck about the perception? Even if you were correct that “the average individual” held a mistaken belief… so what? How does that validate anything you’ve said in this thread? How does it prove that Mexicans (or anyone else) are preparing to genocide whites? You have a perception that American whites are under siege. The reality is that they’re not.
As for how this allegedly “commonly held” misconception occured, well, a lot of people believe a lot of incorrect things. Your conspiracy theory angle is silly.
Hmmm… where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah, that’s what the annointed were saying about South Africa and Rhodesia.
Do you remember Rhodesia? That was the country that was once referred to as "the breadbasket of Africa, but is now known as Zimbabwe.
Zimbabwe is quite a different place than the former Rhodesia. No longer a “breadbasket”, but more a basket-case of murder and famine. Let’s go to the headlines.
So, RobbieFal, you may want to re-think that statement.
It would be smarter (though less conducive to your errors) to look beyond the headlines.
You seem to be implying that the black-on-white genocides predicted for South Africa and Zimbabwe are actually occurring. However, Zimbabwe survived for nearly 20 years (having achieved black-majority rule in 1980) without anything resembling black-on-white genocide. Even today, the hundreds of whites who have been persecuted, including the dozens who have been murdered, is a far smaller number than the black opponents of Mugabe who have been subjected to harrassment and murder. In fact, there is no widespread black-on-white violence. Instead, Mugabe, who has chosen to make himself leader for life (much in the manner of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Salazar, Ceauçescu, and numerous other white leaders who preceded him), decided to maintain his power by emulating his white predecessors by offering the poorest of his supporters land in artificial “land reforms” while identifying an internal minority as the “enemy.” Since the poorest of the poor are black and the largest land-holders are white, the effect gives the appearance of a black-on-white assault (especially to people who choose to read limited reports from the country, looking to support preconceived notions). In reality, urban whites and small farmers have not been subjected to the same harrassment and there is no genocide occurring in the country–just politics as usual for a dictatorship in which one small group of victims happens to be white (while a much larger number of victims whom you choose to ignore are black).
And, of course, while things could turn bad in South Africa, as well, there has not yet been anything resembling black-on-white genocide in that country.
Once again Razorsharp attempts the tired old ploy of passing off two extremely dissimiliar situations as if they were the same. Though predictably tomndebb has managed to provide insight into that issue as well.
What I find particularly entertaining is Razorsharp’s disparaging characterization of all those who disagree with his racialized worldview as liberal. Please do us all a favor and step into the 21st century will you? It isn’t a matter of politics (though I suppose it obviously is with you); you have the entirity of mainstream science and basic human decency to contend with nowadays. These ad hominem attacks against liberals in defense of your racial paranoia (and the SMDB has long since convinced me that I am not a liberal) only serve to make conservatives look bad.
Well, I care, especially when the perception is formed by a campaign of brainwashing. That’s right, brainwashing whites into a sense of collective guilt. And why would “they” do that? Well, it is the Whites that are most concerned with the destruction of traditional American society and it’s sovereignty. Instilling a sense of collective guilt among them lessens their resistance to the imposition of socialism and globalism.
No, it is fact. White on Black crime is trumpeted, while Black on White crime is downplayed. It is an intentional ploy by the establishment media. A conspiracy to instill the sense of collective guilt.
Yeah, it’s the only group that the Supreme Court sanctions institutionalized discrimination against. They can recognize “white”. The University of Michigan board of admissions has no problem recognizing “white”. Why do you have a problem recognizing “white”?
“Nearly half of Zimbabwe’s 12 million people face starvation because of poor rains last season but largely because ZANU PF supporters disrupted agricultural production when they seized land from large-scale producing white farmers.”
Because we’re curious to see where you draw the colot bar.
At different times, East Indians have been whiate (and not white), Persians/Iranians have been white (and not white), Egyptians have been white (and not white), Arabs and Jews (even Jews from Poland and Russia) have been white (and not white), and Italians and Spaniards have been white (and some have been not white).
Since this stuff is so obvious and since you claim that it is based on objective reality, we are curious to know where you draw the line and why your line does or does not agree with all the different other lines that have been drawn.
ShoNuff, when did I refer to Mexicans in Southern California as an invading army? I agree with you that they are hard working and just want to make a better life for themselves.
Have you been brainwashed? If not, what protected you from brainwashing?
“Brainwashing” is a such a ridiculously lazy, unsupportable and implicitly arrogant claim to make. It’s an attempt to reduce your opponents from people who might have a well-reasoned point of view to mere babbling products of manipulation. The main irony with applying it to this issue, though, is that so many of the factoids dragged out to support bigotry are themselves fallacious and only repeated endlessly to try to drown out dissent. That strikes me as an attempt at brainwashing.
In any case, I disagree with you mightily on this issue, so I’d have to ask; by your standards, am I liberal? Have I been brainwashed? I have to admit I don’t feel one tiny sliver of so-called “white guilt”, but at the same time, I don’t feel one tiny sliver of “white fear”.
Blaming the media is another lazy tactic. The “media”, establishment or otherwise, is not a monolithic block with a common agenda to do much of anything. Trying to jam together disparate people you view as threats into groups and attach a label to them is something you’re quite fond of, I see, be the label “media”, “liberal” or “multiculturalists”. By your statement, crimes perpetrated by blacks should be getting little or no coverage in the so-called “establishment media”. That’s a crock, of course, since it’s ridiculously easy to find a range of counter-examples from Willie Horton to John Malvo. The “establishment media” is full of crime stories, since violence sells. I see no indication that any effort is being made to make crime look like a white-only problem. Heck, just watch any episode of Cops, a show so popular, it’s been copied numerous times. Many of the criminals shown aren’t white.
What I have a bigger problem recognizing is why you think the actions of a University are indicative of a huge conspiracy. In fact, if there were a huge conspiracy, why would any “establishment media” outlet even be reporting on U of M policies? For that matter, why are African atrocities perpretrated by blacks being reported at all, since that would seem couterproductive to the establishment media’s conspiracy?
As for why these atrocities are happening at all, it seems easy enough to point out that Africa has a bloody and savage history, with endless cycles of tribal warfare, civil war, massacres etc. What relevance this has to the modern United States escapes me, though.
Regarding a working definition of “white”, I’d like to know what genetic/ethnic/national/whatever background qualifies a person as “white”, in your opinion, as well as what (if anything) can disqualify a person, and can you give examples of “white culture” that have been systematically undermined by immigration or media conspiracies? The word “genocide” has come up a few times in this thread. I’d just like to know who (if anyone) is being genocided (even metaphorically) and how.