It is very important for the people at the economic top to play the middle against the bottom so that they can keep their position. LonesomePolecat admits as much (though he seems more racially motivated than economically motivated, by a touch).
I would like to get mad at someone who says basically that they want WHITE PEOPLE TO BE TOPS, but at least he is being honest about it, whereas 99.9999% of the ridiculous right wingers use racist imagery (“Obama the magic negro”, etc) and racial scare tactics without outright SAYING, we don’t like non-whites getting ahead in this country.
So I applaud you for being an honest, albeit horribly disgusting human being, LonesomePolecat.
DianaG
August 5, 2010, 4:56pm
142
elucidator:
With all due gratitude, I point out that that is not the he that is me.
And, 'struth, I am a radical progressive pessimist. Ghandi said something about working for progress and justice may, in fact, be utterly futile and pointless. But that doesn’t get you off the hook. Preach it, brother.
D’oh! Thanks.
Really Not All That Bright , this Bud’s for you, man.
Chessic_Sense:
Really_Not_All_That_Bright:
Then I’m sure you can provide a citation. Other than that guy you work with, of course.
I’m sure I can find a cite, but I don’t care enough to do that. I’ve got a respected, credible primary source sitting right next to me. I’m not going to go hunt around on the internet for an inferior source just to win an internet argument. So I’m going to drop a line that I don’t think I’ve ever said before: “My post is my cite”.
I happen to have Janet Napolitano on the phone right now, and she says you’re full of shit. It’s not that I don’t believe you; it’s just that I don’t know who the fuck your respected primary source is.
However, since he’s right next to you, I’m sure he can provide a link to a GAO, CBO or DHS Inspector General’s report which provides the exact information we seek.
First you call me luci . Then you toast me with shitty beer. Was it something I said?
Time to trot this out once again . . .
From Blood, Class and Nostalgia: Anglo-American Ironies,
U.S. English, it emerged, was a project of “U.S. Inc.,” a tax-exempt body which underwrote a number of other groups, such as the Center for Immigration Studies, Americans for Border Control, and Californians for Population Stabilization. There was no mistaking the timbre of this joint output, which had little to do with the teaching of “the Queen’s English” except as this bore upon the connection between that English and certain inherited conceptions of race and tribal security. Dr. John Tanton, the originating author of this cluster of groups and initiatives, was himself in no doubt that “the question of bilingualism grows out of U.S. immigration policy.”
So much might have seemed obvious, at least until Dr. Tanton wrote a paper which, phrased in the poor and affected English which is often found among the language’s more ostentatious upholders, created a crisis for his hitherto blue-chip WASP and Jewish campaign. As he coarsely put it:
Having rather clumsily Latinized or Romanized his argument, Tanton moved to a more demotic style. He warned sternly of such alarming cultural imports as "the tradition of the mordida (bribe), the lack of involvement in public affairs, and Roman Catholicism with its tendency to “pitch out the separation of church and state.” He continued to skirt around these aspects of the problem – the most conspicuous opponents of church-state separation in the 1980s have been fundamentalist Protestants – making an excursion through allegedly low “educability” before returning with relish to his main theme, which was, as ever, sex and fertility:
This piece of inadvertence – the shift to “white” as the key word speaks volumes in the extract above, as well as showing the secondary significance of ideas like “culture” and “language” – led to the resignation of many of the U.S. English board members, among them Walter Cronkite and the neoconservative Hispanic Linda Chavez. It also led to closer scrutiny of the network of which Dr. Tanton was the convenor. The chairman of the Florida English campaign, for example, had advocated the elimination of emergency telephone services in Spanish in order to supply what he called an “incentive” to the learning of the tongue of Shakespeare and Dickens. His Dade County equivalent had warned that “the United States is not a mongrel nation.” Rusty Butler, an aide to Senator Steven Symms of Idaho, had forwarded the senator’s call for an English-language amendment to the Constitution by saying that “the language issue could feed and guide terrorism in the U.S.” Finally, it was discovered that among the donors to Dr. Tanton’s network was the Pioneer Fund, established in the unpropitious year of 1937 to proselytize for what it then called “applied genetics in present-day Germany.”
Pioneer Fund
John Tanton
Funnily enough, I’m totally okay with making English the official language of the land. I just hate all the other people that want to do it.
Wow it took more than 2 full pages before LP found something come in and threadrape about.
Why don’t you stick to the discussion at hand, LP .
Captain_Midnight:
The 14th Amendment is stupid and badly worded and definitely needs to be changed or repealed.
Why does a child, born of a non-citizen automatically beomes a citizen? Even a foreigner on vacation in the USA could have a child there and the child would be a citizen.
Many people including myself wants this abolished because it promotes foreign pregnant women to sneak across the border to have a baby on the taxpayers. Then since the woman is a mother of a citizen, she gets to stay too. Then the mother invites all of her relatives to come.
All the welfare consumed by the invader, multiple babies and family members robs working people of their money (taxes) while forcing them to live in worse and worse conditions.
28 people in a two bedroom house, beer bottles in the yard, drunk drivers galore. Working meat packing plant jobs, on welfare and/or selling drugs. I know most of you on this board love “diversity” (as long as it is not in your neighborhood of course), well, this is it.
Did you have to consume a lot of alcohol to reach this level of clarity?
LonesomePolecat:
Perhaps you’d care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I’ve often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.
Well, that’s because you’re a racist monster. At least, that’s the impression I’ve gotten over the years reading your posts.
the song is “Trouble Every Day”, btw… one of my favs
:dubious: Nobody comes to America because they want to get on welfare!
Really_Not_All_That_Bright:
I happen to have Janet Napolitano on the phone right now, and she says you’re full of shit. It’s not that I don’t believe you; it’s just that I don’t know who the fuck your respected primary source is.
However, since he’s right next to you, I’m sure he can provide a link to a GAO, CBO or DHS Inspector General’s report which provides the exact information we seek.
All right, here’s what I’ve got for you: 8 U.S.C 1229b(b)1D
§ 1229b. Cancellation of removal; adjustment of status(D) establishes that removal would result in exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s spouse, parent, or child, who is a citizen of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence.
As for my coworker…dude frickin’ knows everything about immigration. He’s been doing it since Jesus was deported. The only reason I found the right law was because he called out the paragraph like it was nothing. “Oh, that’s 1229.” Then he went back to telling the other guys how to strategize the government’s promotion system to get up there in the minimum number of years. I call him the “wise, old sage that sits in the corner.”
** Why the sudden surge in Xenophobia? **
It’s nothing to do with me! I was somewhere else, I swear!
Chessic_Sense:
As for my coworker…dude frickin’ knows everything about immigration. He’s been doing it since Jesus was deported. The only reason I found the right law was because he called out the paragraph like it was nothing. “Oh, that’s 1229.” Then he went back to telling the other guys how to strategize the government’s promotion system to get up there in the minimum number of years. I call him the “wise, old sage that sits in the corner.”
Perhaps he can also tell us when the terms “attorney general” and “judge” became synonymous?
I did, but then I got fobbed off with this high-payin’ job thing instead. American Dream, pfft !
Oh, for Pete’s sake. It doesn’t even strain credibility. You said parents of citizens get deported at the same rate as the rest of them. Where’s your cite, huh? You’re the one making the claim.
DianaG
August 5, 2010, 6:25pm
155
Dude, if you can’t trust the guy who sits next to some guy on the internet, who CAN you trust?
You know, if you’re worried about all the Hispanics coming here and ruining the country, how about we enforce existing immigration law, rather than stripping citizenship away from American babies?
After all, if that Hispanic pregnant woman gets stopped at the border when she tries to sneak across, she can’t give birth in the United States in the first place.
It doesn’t make much sense to me to declare that the children of non-citizens cannot be citizens, when the borders are more or less open anyway. If we don’t control the borders, it makes very little sense to just declare the second and third and fourth generations non-citizens. If we don’t deport the parents, why go after the kids? And if we do deport the parents, then the problem is moot, because the number of non-citizens giving birth on US soil will be very small.
So maybe instead of changing the constitution, we could try, you know, enforcing the law and stuff.
Of course, I can imagine the reaction of a paranoid right-winger, when asked to present proof of parental citizenship at the hospital after the baby is born, otherwise the baby gets deported. That’ll be a barrel of laughs. Or were they imaginging only parents who speak spanish will be asked to prove citizenship?
LonesomePolecat:
Perhaps you’d care to explain how whites benefit from giving up their status as the dominant majority. I’ve often asked this question here and elsewhere, and all I get is either a lot of happy talk about how beautiful diversity is supposed to be or a lot of snarling about what a racist monster I am.
Have you encountered “Who cares?” yet?
Lemur866:
You know, if you’re worried about all the Hispanics coming here and ruining the country, how about we enforce existing immigration law, rather than stripping citizenship away from American babies?
Who needs Hispanics??? We can ruin the country just fine without help
It’s not a claim; that is the neutral position.
Similar in that neither actually exist.
