Apologies for the sloppy tag editing.
Well if I define a lizard to be a cow, that “cow” can’t give any milk. If the ICotEoAFoRD used a messed up definition for racism, that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them. While people do discriminate based on national origin, it isn’t racism unless they discriminate based on… race.
No jobs here. You Californians just keep moving to Colorado. It’s much nicer there.
Some of us are quite happy with our massive depopulation. We put up with hot sweaty buggy summers and terrible blizzards and low wages so that we can have plenty of room in our parks.
Fortunately your opinion isn’t what counts. The United States is a signatory of that agreement. Unfortunately, it appears that this is just another case of the US not honoring its agreements.
Add Michael Huffington to the list of criminals who hire illegal nannies.
CBEscapee: Evidently you’re not prepared to provide proof that the current US immigration policy is racist. Since you have been consistently dishonest in this matter, I am not prepared to accept your word that it is.
What does speaking Spanish in Mexico have to do with this thread?
That’s a pretty strong claim. Now let me see proof where I have been dishonest.
You’ve been trying to steer this debate away from racism in the US by pointing a finger at Mexico. What is honest about that?
Definition are suprmely important in a debate such as this. If your argument is that US immigration policy is racist because it discriminates based on national origin, then I think there is no debate. Almost everyone will agree that the US does discriminate based on national origin.
But then you’ll have a heck of an argument trying to convince people that this is bad. I thin kthe US SHOULD discriminate based on country of origin.
The agreement the US government signed defines racism. If you don’t agree with that definition then contact your elected officials. THEY ratified it.
Show me where I have asserted that criminals do not have any protection against abuse by the authorities or admit your dishonesty.
Show me where I have asserted that criminals have no rights or admit your dishonesty.
Show me where I have asserted that people have the right to abuse criminals in the US or admit your dishonesty.
That is irrelevant to the issue of illegally entering another country. BTW, the Governor of California is a citizen of the United States of America. Also FYI, the case to which you refer may be submitted to the county prosecutor’s office for a determination of charges to be made, if any, against the Governor.
I’ve no idea except in my own case: I have never used illegal drugs. At any rate, the way they should be treated is whatever way the law mandates such treatment. That would include referral of charges by competent witnesses, if there are any.
All of that is irrelevant to the issue of illegally entering another country.
They should be treated as the law mandates it.
That is irrelevant to the issue of illegal immigration. Well, Fox’s lies about illegal immigrants aren’t irrelevant.
Show me where I said that Fox called for completely open borders or admit your dishonesty. You obviously missed the point of my posting.
Yes, ridiculous. What I call debating is addressing the issues pertinent to the matter under discussion. Apparently, you call tossing out irrelevant stuff, and doing so dishonestly, as debating.
Show me where I said that racism does not exist in the United States of America or admit your dishonesty.
Ah, so you obviously missed the point of that bit of information also. Spanish became the main language of Mexico because of the supposed cultural superiority of the Spanish conquerors. That’s a bit of history of Mexico, isn’t it? Didn’t you toss up some bits of history of the United States of America in your attempt to “prove” that the current policy on immigration is driven by racism?
Yes, ill-informed and unfounded. You’ve constantly ignored requests for you to show that such racism is the driving factor, as you’ve asserted, in the current–i.e., not historical–immigration policy of the United States of America.
You’ve asserted that racism is the driving factor. It is incumbent on you to prove your assertion.
Or you can just admit to your dishonesty.
How bizarre. You have obviously refused to open any of the several links I’ve posted demonstrating my position. You have rejected out of hand hard facts, opinions of Supreme Court justices and other notables. You have constantly tried to derail the debate by bringing up human rights violations in Mexico as if they had anything at all to do with racism in the US.
You have added nothing but your highly subjective and prejudiced opinions. You twist and spin anything I post without adding one shred of evidence to refute anything contained in any of my cites. And you have the gall to call me dishonest?
You win monty. I bow to your honesty. The USA is a bastion of freedom where all races and creeds enjoy equal protection by law under the watchful eye of the government of most perfect democratic country on the face of the earth. Such benevolence is to be admired.
Adios hermano.
Now you are mixing issues. The way everyone else in this thread was basing their arguments was to debate whether US immigration policy was racist, and they were using the traditional dictionary sense of racism. I would say that there is much room for arguement in that. If you want to argue based on the expanded definition of “racism” from that treaty, I think that everyone would agree that US immigration policy is “racist.” It is obvious that the US does discriminate on national origin.
And if you want to argue whether the US immigration policy racist breaks international treaties, that’s yet another issue, but not one we were debating.
Well, BoringDad, if one’s going to argue about treaties, one really should mention Mexico’s little treaty with the US recognizing our border with them. But that wouldn’t be polite, I guess.
This shows completely what a true coward monty is. Where are the mods?
Por que?
You are the one that just broke the rules.
[Moderator Hat ON]
CBEscapee, it is perfectly fine to direct posters to a pit thread about them as long as you do it in a fairly civil manner, i.e. you can’t phrase it like, “link to Pit thread where we can trash this drooling moron.” Your personal issues with Monty, and his with you, should be dealt with in the Pit thread, and NOT in this thread anymore.
[Moderator Hat OFF]
You can’t prove it, he didn’t kill his wife.
CBEscapee: In post #99, you asked,
When asked for a cite, you responded with post #102, which contained a lot of interesting information, but never addressed the question directly.
You provide evidence that blacks are more likely to get the death penalty than whites; that people who kill whites are more likely to get the death penalty than people who kill blacks; and that a black accused of killing a white is more likely to get the death penalty than a white accused of killing a white.
You never provided any evidence that a black killing a white is more likely to get the death penalty than a white killing a black.
You also never compensated for what is largely believed to be the single largest contributing factor toward escaping the death penalty: net worth. If you compare rich whites killing blacks to rich blacks killing whites, what are the stats (how many rich folks of any race get the death penalty)? How about comparing poor whites killing blacks to poor blacks killing whites?