You make a good point, I hadn’t looked at it that way. Hell, if the fence works as well as the war on drugs, I might be able to afford a housekeeper and a gardener in a year or two.
so what? The majority of the world practiced slavery as did the US. The fundamentalist Muslims would like to restore it. Washington owned slaves. Big deal. Britain had only recently outlawed it as well as did Mexico.
Your statement wasn’t the Jim Bowie was a product of his time. Your statement wasn’t that some of the Founders owned slaves. Your statement wasn’t that Britain and Mexico had outlawed slavery or that the majority of the world believed in slavery.
Your implied that Jim Bowie wasn’t a racist. He was a slave a trader, that regardless of Washington, the rest of the world, fundamentalist Muslims, Great Britain and Mexico was doing, did, hope to do makes your statement concerning Jim Bowie’s racist intend…false.
Unless you believe that one can trade humans and enslave based solely on the color of their skin, not racist.
That’s what.
In that case, why don’t you show what I wrote in this thread and others that links my beliefs about illegals to the words you used. I’ve said repeatedly, and strongly, that they are illegal and should be sent the fuck back home. That does not mean that I have a problem with them as people. As you try to scrounge up your evidence, take the time to read the post where I extol the work ethic and politeness of virtually all the illegals that I have personally come in contact with.
Can you possibly wrap your head around the idea that someone might believe that these are fine people, and also empathize with their decision to seek a better life elsewhere for themselves and their families, yet not condone them sneaking in and/or being in the country illegally? Please chew on that. Really.
Seriously, dude. Skip the cites even. Just please try to grasp that. I’m not looking for another fight with you here, but you’re ascribing opinions to me that I do not own.
I would like to know by the way what false generalities I am guilty of. I wish to purge myself of them immediately so that I don’t have to endure insults myself. I guess only the great ones who agree with you are allowed such latitudes.
Being that that is the only stumbling block, you need to grasp that other people do not see their crime of sneaking in on equal footing to other crimes, and as they are committing something bad by sneaking in, looking to legalize their status is indeed looking to deal with those semi-bad people, in other words, dealing with them by legalizing the status of many of them is what grown ups will do, not what fantasy proponents and panderers tell you.
Well, I guess you choose to not respond to what I wrote. Instead, you try to now imply that I am the one who does not understand the other side’s position. (Which is untrue and I’m sure you have no evidence of. Not agreeing with you does not equal not understanding you.
But all that is absolutely irrelavant. On the table is your mischaracterization of my position. I pointed out what you did and why it was wrong, both factually and ethically.
Yet you decide to post a response without actually responding.
Care to try again? I’ll even help: You might want include in your response something like: “I see your point. I went too far by mischaracterizing your position. My apologies.”
Just a suggestion. Of course, YMMV.
Not in Europe, or most western nations, they didn’t, from what I recall. Maybe parts of Latin America. But Europe had outlawed the slave trade for the most part long before we did.
Still didn’t make it right.
Nope, on the table is your refusal to see how silly you are, telling others to grow up by dealing with unsavory people, problem here is that at the same time you are forgetting that we have to deal with the unsavory (and here I refer to their “terrible” crime of being illegal) illegals with solutions that you will not like. IOW it is you who needs to grow up **magellan01 **.
Oh, I wasn’t going after it like it was your opinion. I was just supposing out loud after my two cents.
His name is Rene de la Pedraja. It’s a big book with a yellow cover. I believe the book is about wars in Latin America.
Other books on the subject that I like are Castro’s biography by Tad Szulc and Cuba: A Revolution in Motion by Isaac Saney.
Here you go:
Wars of Latin America, 1899-1941
Heh. Thanks. I was being lazy and you went and looked it up.
I really need to start just looking crap up after I reference them instead of letting it dangle.
Lesson learned.
Look, randyjet, I brought that thread to your attention, not to bring Hitchens’ recent political evolution into it, but because it covers the topic suggested by the thread title: “What role does racism play in the American anti-immigration movement?” And up to this point in this your own thread, you have not shown the guts to confront that question head-on, or to defend your position that preserving the current racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population is somehow an important or worthwhile goal, or explain why.
So how about it? :dubious:
randyjet, you have made the foillowing assertions while failing to provide evidence that any of them are true:
Given your record of accuracy, so far, I would be surprised to discover that even half of these statements bear any truth, at all.
Further, you made the claim that
which was false, your actual statement was the racial claim that
Since then, you have failed to explain why we should have racial quotas, at all.
Beyond that, you have repeatedly resorted to insulting language that just barely stays inside the line of the rules of this Forum:
Now, you are not required to provide evidence of your wilder claims, but you will persuade no one by resorting to hyperbolic falsehoods.
You are also not required to be polite, but if you continue in your current path, I would have to say, based on the paths of other rude posters before you, that you will find yourself excluded from this company.
Thanks! I will check it out (and probably recommend it to my husband…war stuff is much more his thing that mine!). 
Tomndedd, I posted a link to information about the EU fence from a Washington Times article in post #85. Is it required that randyjet has to post the same link for it to be valid? What I’m asking, is it a requirment that only the claiment can prove his point and no one else can aid him in doing so? (Caveat: I in no way endorse his position, or whatever else he says.)
'Tis a large book. Good for beating insurgents, I hear.
I was hoping you would do the polite and honorable thing—not expecting, just hoping. But, sadly, you were true to form. But let’s recap:
Der Trihs and I were involved in a discussion about dictators, in which I stated:
For some strange reason only known (possibly) to your therapist, you then chimed in out of nowhere to both contort what was being discussed and to attribute opinions to me that are not mine:
I attempted to not make a big deal of things and responded in a way to close the subject, while pointing out that you chose to mistakiingly attribute certain opinions to me:
The only responsive part to your next post was:
To which I responded:
And you then offer this, ignoring the issue of you putting forth opinions as mine that aren’t:
Seeing you were either trying to wilfully skirt the issue or that you were genuinely unaware of what your next course of action should be (or would be if concerned with honest debate, I offered:
And finally, your last reponse:
Where to start? You attempt to equate dictators with illegals by describiing them both as “unsavory”. As inapt as this is, it is worsened by the fact that I had just explained to you that I never characterized illegals as such and do not hold that opinion. So if I don’t thiink that illegals deserve the adjective of unsavory, and told you so, why do this again. I don’t think you are of the opinion that they are unsavory. So, it seems that you are trying to use cheap, dishonest debating tactics again, attempting to attribute words and opinions to me that I didn’t say and don’t hold.
Why?
Do you not see what you did as cheap, dishonest? Or are you unable to acknowledge when you make a mistake? Are you afraid that might mean you should then apologize, and that is something you are uncomfortable doing?
Not at all. That was simply one in a list of points he has made that he failed to document at the time that he posted his claim.
He may very well have the right of it in this whole discussion. My point is that blithe and unsupported assertion mixed with insulting language does nothing to persuade others of his views.
He is free to continue posting in his current style (and being dismissed as a crank until his insults become sufficiently overt as to get him removed), or he can attempt to actually provide evidence for his assertions so as to persuade those who may be undecided on the topic.
His choice.