Race is a social concept, not a biological concept.
Please have a discussion with your genetiscist friends. Apparently, you’ve misunderstood what they’ve said to you in the past.
Ideally, you would invite you geneticist friends to participate in this forum. The more the merrier. It would be nice to observe your conversation with them here.
Let us know when you’ve invited them, and what they say about coming.
Genetic markers do not identify race. Genetic markers can help identify one ancestors. The determination of what race these ancestors are/were is a social one.
This analogy is fundamentally flawed as there’re no examples of this sort of generation after generation of controlled, captive breeding of humans. The truth is that humans have been breeding with pretty much whomever they please since time immemorial.
If you’ll ask your geneticist friends, they explain to you that race is not a biological concept. In case you didn’t notice, da Vinci isn’t “White.”
Since the concept of race is not a biologically valid one, this sarcastic tantrum is moot. This also underlines some issues you have in grasping the concepts involved in evolution.
Please consult with your geneticsit friends.
Most basically to control the government governing me. There’re a number of rights to this effect listed in the US Constitution if you’re curious.
FYI, this is another incorrect assumption on your part. I grew up w/o a TV and I still don’t have a TV.
Consider the saying about what happens when you assume.
Actually, that’s security not liberty.
This is something that’s offered by dictators. As a matter of fact, it’s one of the few things taht Iraqis have missed of Hussein’s regime.
There’s an old chestnut about those who’d exchange liberty for security. It says that those who’d do so deserve neither.
This is also security. Are you sure that you’re an American. You seem to have a poor grasp on the concepts of Liberty on which this country was founded.
Dictatorships have offered this too you know.
The context of this thread has not lent itself to such things. Most people are proud of who they are. I know I am. I don’t however try to take credit for the works of others just because we share the same skin tones or ancestry. Seems like a very shallow source of pride. I think that my own abilities and accomplishments are ample things to be prideful of.
Are you harboring a notion that “White” people are in some sort opf danger of dissappearing from the face of the Earth?
I wonder why, exactly, does Charles A. Lindbergh want the U.S, specifically, to be his special white wonderland. I mean, there’s been a fair share of interracial intercourse going on throughout the years, and on top of that all the European ethnicities have gone through a merry blender. Compared to folks here in Europeland, where the influx of non-white races has generally begun rather recently and the races haven’t really started mixing yet, Americans are mutt people (and there certainly is nothing wrong with it.) Instead of everybody and their brother moving out of the Lindyland, U.S.A, why doesn’t Lindy move to, say, Trondheim?
Well, we’ll let the mods be the judge of that. However, GD isn’t exactly the place for lines like:
[ul]
[li]“You’re big on talk. After you finish washing out your talking mouth with soap strong enough to handle your inability to communicate with anything other than ghetto lingo, you might consider the possibility that our open borders President is also big on talk, just like you!”[/li][li]“How stupid are you?”[/li][li]"…your thinking is just as pathetic as the fellow ahead of you."[/li][/ul]
Last, but not least, is the prohibition against hate speech. Tough to define, but I sort of know it when I see it, like pornography.
Classic trolling. He takes a shot at George Bush to piss off conservatives and acts blatantly racist to piss off liberals, and the whole basis of the thread has little basis in reality. I have a hard time believing the sincerity of the OP.
If the poster actually believes all this stuff and truly is a white supremacist (see his profile), he still isn’t bringing anything to the debate.
Congratulations, Charles. When I first started skimming thorugh this thread, with the exception of your inflammatory malarky in the OP, I was opposed to an amnesty. My mother is an immigrant who had to wait her turn to get into the US, and I had thought that it was only fair to do the maximum to keep the system on the level and not reward those who would seek to subvert it.
I have now spun 180 degrees. I am in favor of a significant – but not total – amnesty. For one main reason: I’d rather hear more about immigrants working hard and trying to make a life for their family than hear more racist blather about white society and other nonsense.
That probably makes me a traitor, too, eh? Fine. Call the US Attorney’s office. If you get charges filed in Southern California, I’ll pay my own way out there to face them. And since SoCal is being “taken over” by Mexicans – who will probably be eligible for citizenship if I get my way – there won’t be a jury in your town that would convict me of treason.
True, though it shouldn’t come as a surprise. Liberals start with the assumption that the neocons are going to do things that they disagree with, so they don’t get too upset when that proves to be a correct assumption. Far right-wingers, on the other hand, start out thinking that the neocons will support their agenda. When that doesn’t happen, they feel betrayed. Spurned lovers can be pretty vicious.
:rolleyes: I could add some reasoned comment to this debate. But what’s the point? It’d be shooting fish in a barrel. There’s rarely any point or reward in apply reason or discussing facts with racists. They’re not interested in either.