|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 28, 2007 18:14:02 GMT -8
Uh, NO! I don't think it is. That's the part YOU AREN'T GETTING!
America is NOT a racist country. Deal with it, or not, your choice!
I have dealt with it. I am past it. YOU CLEARLY AREN'T. That makes it YOUR PROBLEM, not mine.
No, I am just sick of America being called a racist country. There is NO WAY injustices of the past will EVERY BE PAID OFF in your mind - you have to go back 125 fucking years to justify your bullshit argument! It isn't working.
No, not anyone specifically - JUST ALL OF AMERICA, IN GENERAL (all of WHITE America anyway). Ain't working anymore, dude.
Race isn't an issue where it comes to border security. Your attempts to make it about race are bogus. Nobody here is buying it. It isn't working. To the extent race is an issue in YOUR LIFE - deal with it!
I couldn't have said it better, myself.
No, you just condemn all of America.
I read bullshit all day long. What I won't do is BUY IT.
I think YOU are the racist here. It's every other GD word out of your mouth. You are the one with the problem - not America.
Many people here have tried to explain reality to you. You are blind to it. It's not our problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 28, 2007 19:57:22 GMT -8
Reality? Judging from the word choice, I'd say that reality is "bullshit". Do you have any other words in your vocab? I'm glad it's not your problem. Otherwise, there'd be a lot of dead Mexicans. Of course. When there's a problem, it can't be the fault of anybody but the messenger. You know -- the one that steps out of line and rocks the boat a little bit. Classic. Stalin had that same mentality.  Now you say I'm racist. I'd like a quote. Show it to me. Talking about race doesn't make me racist. But your refusal to address anything whatsoever even remotely related to race makes me wonder about the beliefs you're hiding, though. You're quite sensitive about racial issues for not caring about race whatsoever. It's "bullshit". It's "whining". It's "every other GD word". The language makes it clear you definitely have a problem when it comes to talking about race. If you wiped the shit of your face, you wouldn't need to type in all caps to read it. I did? Where? Quotes. I'm not talking about border security. I'm talking about the movement of people -- you know, migrants. Not terrorists or invading armies. I'm surprised you managed that piece of double-speak. I thought that it was exclusively for liberals and communists. Nope. Not all of "white America". Just middle-class conservative white America. That narrows it a bit. I've already explained why. But I guess I should have wrote it in all caps. You sure have projected enough of your own insecurities on me and on the discussion for it to be pointless to remind you AGAIN (and in caps and bold) that US immigration law started then. And hasn't ended. So obviously the last 125 years in the context of immigration law is relevant. I haven't talked about anything else related to race -- and I've only talked about race within the context of immigration. But it's YOU not me that's making race the primary issue, rather than immigration. I'm not talking about America or race relations in America's history. I've been talking about immigration in case you haven't been able to follow the conversation (not enough bullshit to fill you for the day?). Get back to the subject. For it being my "problem", you sure do talk plenty enough about it. You're obviously not passed (that's the correct spelling fyi) it sufficiently to be able to talk about it intelligently. But, hey, I'm "dealing with it" by explaining, what I think, to be the issues (despite your whining). Obviously you don't understand that convincing you otherwise isn't my goal. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 28, 2007 21:40:15 GMT -8
Fair enough. Now THAT, I accept.
The rest of your rant is just evidence of a big-ass chip on your shoulder.
The beauty of it is, I don't have to carry it around with me!
Your attempts to shove race up the ass of the "Securing the Borders" issue falls flat because it has no merit.
We're not going to that pity party.
I fully expect your next tactic to be to compare securing the borders with the Berlin Wall - that is, if you can figure a way to bring race into it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 28, 2007 22:09:05 GMT -8
Better a chip on my shoulder than my head up my ass. But I guess that makes you comfortable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 28, 2007 22:25:22 GMT -8
Did I call you a racist? Or did I say that America's immigration law originated from ideas of race?
Are they not the same thing? Is that not the American spirit? Isn't that why every immigrant group came here in the first place -- to make something of themselves, to better their situation in life? America is the land of opportunities -- that's why people come here and that's why people work hard.
I have not disputed that right. I have only called into question the effectiveness of the present immigration policy. Arguing for reform of policy inherently assumes that we already have the right to make such policy.
You're right. It certainly does. But immigration does not pose a significant threat to Americans of any kind, and the present immigration policy only hurts, not helps, Americans. I'll say it again: a policy that excludes a segment of society by default also excludes that element from any kind of institutional accountability. The fears of crime, disease, fraud, balkanization, and social collapse all derive from the same source of exclusion. A policy that enfranchises immigrations encourages assimilation, establishes accountability, generates trust, diffuses tension, and builds credibility for both parties.
What is wrong with a large influx of immigrants?
Unemployment in the US is at an all-time low. Who exactly is being displaced and why? Globalization and outsourcing have more to do with the changes in employment than immigration, legal or otherwise.
How many illegal immigrants actually receive tax money?
Let's rephrase that. "It's a democratic country whose citizens seem more interested in migrating in order to attain more opportunities than what is available in their own country. Should Mexicans fix problems in Mexico? Absolutely. Americans should also fix problems in America. But the two countries are neighbors whether it's liked or not. And the opportunities in the United States far exceed those in Mexico. If Mexicans want to come here live and work among us as do all other immigrant groups, what is the objection? Mexicans have been living in parts of this country far longer than Americans have. It's a land that both Mexicans and Americans share in their history. Why should we not let Mexicans in "whenever they come so long as they aren't criminals by our standards?"
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 3:52:56 GMT -8
Better a chip on my shoulder than my head up my ass. But I guess that makes you comfortable. 101 was right about you. You are as full of shit as a country goose. You are ate-up with skin color and you cannot see anything else in ANY ISSUE. The FIRST THING you see is the color of someone's skin. You charge anyone who refuses to buy-in to your bullshit line of thinking (that everything is motivated by skin-color) with having their head up their ass. You are totally blinded by the issue. That makes YOU a racist. I know racial discrimination when I see it. I've had to deal with it before. In a way, this reminds me of when Sean Penn came out and endorsed Dennis Kucinich for President, the funniest part of that whole thing was the fact that neither of THEM GOT THE JOKE. When the moron who IS THE JOKE doesn't GET THE JOKE, it's all the funnier. Now, the big question is, are you smart enough to understand how that applies to YOU? Until you choose to rise above the subject of skin-color, you will never really get it. Your angry charge of racism in the border-security issue is falling on deaf ears. Haven't you noticed that NOBODY HERE is buying it? Go sell your racism somewhere else. It clearly isn't playing here. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 7:05:33 GMT -8
Now here are some words of wisdom from two men who aren't racists.
A MINORITY VIEW
BY WALTER E. WILLIAMS
RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, APRIL 12, 2006, AND THEREAFTER
IMMIGRATION VS. GATE-CRASHING
Click here to Print |
My sentiments on immigration are inscribed at the foot of the Statue of Liberty: ". . . Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore, Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door."
These words of poet Emma Lazarus served as the welcome mat for tens of millions seeking liberty and opportunity in America -- legally. Being a relatively land-rich and labor-scarce nation, immigration has always been good for our country. Plus, for most of our history, there was a guarantee that immigrants would come here to work. The alternative was starvation.
With today's welfare state, there's no such guarantee. People can come here, not work and not starve because the welfare state guarantees that they can live off the rest of us.
At the heart of today's immigration problem is its illegality. According to several estimates, there are 11 million people who are in our country illegally, mostly from Mexico. Many people, including my libertarian friends and associates, advance an argument that differs little from saying that people anywhere in the world have a right to live in the United States irrespective of our laws or preferences.
According to that vision, American people do not have a right to set either the number of people who enter our country or the conditions upon which they enter. Some of the arguments and terms used in the immigration debate defy reason. First, there's the refusal to call these people "illegal aliens." The politically preferred term is "undocumented workers," which is nothing less than verbal sleight-of-hand. After all, I, too, am an undocumented worker.
My colleague, Thomas Sowell, exposes some of this verbal sleight-of-hand in his recent column "Guests or Gate-Crashers?" He questions calling for "guest worker" status for people who, because they weren't invited, are not guests at all but gate-crashers. Sowell argues that the more substantive arguments for flaunting our immigration laws are just as phony.
link here if you care to read it:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/guests_or_gate_crashers.html
How about the argument that "We can't catch all the illegals"? That's true, but should we apply that principle to other illegal acts? For example, we can't catch every rapist or burglar, but does it follow that we shouldn't try?
The base motives for much of the political response to illegal aliens are fear of losing the Hispanic vote and pressure by employers who want to maintain a source of cheap labor. Politicians are calling for "guest worker" programs, but they're really calling for amnesty. They are fearful of actually using that term because they know it's political suicide, but the "guest worker" proposal is essentially the same as amnesty.
The word amnesty comes from the Greek "amnestia," defined in part as: "the selective overlooking or ignoring of those events or acts that are not favorable or useful to one's purpose or position." That's what the proposed guest worker program essentially says: forget that you're here illegally.
In principle, the solution to people being in our country illegally is simple. No one in the country illegally should be eligible to receive any social services except emergency medical services. Efforts should be made to deport illegal aliens. Our borders should be made secure both against illegal entry of persons and potential threats to national security.
Finally, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services procedures for obtaining work permits and citizenship should be streamlined so that law-abiding people around the world can more easily contribute to and enjoy America's greatness.
www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/06/immigration.html |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 9:13:42 GMT -8
I'd like to hear what Don King has to say about it.
He is one of the most accomplished entrepreneurs in world history and I respect his opinion as much as anyone's.
I would LOVE to hear his opinion on border control and illegal immigration.
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 9:38:47 GMT -8
And yet you're still the one WHINING about race and racism. I barely mentioned the word within the context of immigration policy, and now here you are projecting your own insecurities about racism onto what you believe my other opinions to be. Feel free to read through the posts again and you'll see that it was you, not me, that changed the focus from immigration to racism. But I don't you'll bother to read it -- and even if you did, you can't actually believe that you, not somebody else, instigated your apparent angry. For whatever reason, race is a taboo subject. Like you're buried under a mountain of "race cards" and you've got is the Joker, yourself. Boo-hoo. What you still have ABSOLUTELY FAILED to address (because you cannot possibly detach your personal views about race from the subject whatsoever) is the views on race of the legislators that enacted the laws in the first place. Your views on race, my views on race, and certainly your views on what believe to be my views on race, are irrelevant for the subject. But that's something I mentioned earlier -- you probably just missed that. You couldn't have read it and failed to understand it, right? You possibly couldn't have failed to understand a simple explanation in plain English, right? I mean, you can't possibly not understand that you've turned an objective argument about immigration law and race into something very personal and aggressive? Or am I wrong -- did you really fail to understand that your views on race are COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT? And you charge anyone with daring to even mention race a "whiner", "racist", "bullshit", and a "problem". Apparently it's "every GD word". You're the one with the sensitivity issues about race, it's evident in your language. But I guess the anonymity of the internet makes you feel safe to express your sensitive feelings about race. That would explain why I'm laughing harder than you. You're just angry and profane. Mid-life crisis? I'm not about to take advice from someone who apparently suffers from some kind of inability to discuss race intelligently and respectfully. Angry? I appreciate the irony. I've noticed that jfree and petard countered my argument intelligently and respectfully. And that you've failed to do the same. But I guess you missed that. It must have passed while you had your head... well you know. I'm still waiting on those quotes. Let me know if you find them. But you've found an entire article by Williams, who happens to be black, that agrees with you. Now you're just name dropping. Does that make you feel more secure -- that a person of color is in agreement with you about immigration? Try making your own argument for once -- you might enjoy it. |
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 10:41:08 GMT -8
Getting into a discussion in a nut-house is a ridiculous waste of time, but I'll give it another try.
Barely mentioning "RACE" in the context of illegal immigration is like being barely pregnant. Race has implications WELL BEYOND barely mentioning the word. We both know that.
There is no reason to mention it at all since the subject of border security has nothing to do with racism.
All I did was wave the BS flag on your "barely" mentioning it.
My apparent "angry?" Don't sweat it, I know what you meant.
Race is absolutely NOT a taboo subject as far as I'm concerned. I will discuss it with you all day long. Racism exists. It's real. It's also NOT a matter of public policy in America. In most of its forms, it's against the law. If you want to talk about race, race relations, stories of racial discrimination or anything else about it, I am more than happy to do that. It just has no place in THIS particular thread.
Go start a race thread. I'll jump in and we can discuss it, rationally and in context, to your heart's content. I've been a victim of racial discrimination. I know something about it. If you want to talk about it, I am more than happy to do so.
OK, I addressed this, but I must not have been clear. THAT LAW ISN'T LAW ANYMORE. IT WAS ENACTED 125 fucking years ago! It has NOTHING to do with anything today.
There! Do you get it now? I fear not. Like I said, the law could have been enacted 500 years ago and done away with 200 years ago and you would STILL be trying to draw a parallel.
You cannot afford for past injustices to ever go away because then there wouldn't be a need for payback.
You want to dredge up injustices from history and throw it in our face today as proof of how racially motivated our immigration policy is. That shit was repealed before your parents were born.
You want to be able to say, "See, racism is in this country's DNA and there isn't ANY getting rid of it, EVER! No matter what you do today, or ever do in the future, America will wear its racist past around its neck for all to see. No matter what changes America has made or ever makes, it won't be enough. The payback will NEVER be complete."
Racism is like a virus and you're trying to spread it into areas of our existence that aren't even currently infected. Why would you do that???
Actually, those things are the ONLY ISSUES about race that ARE germane to this discussion!
If our views on race are irrelevant - COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT - to this discussion, why did you "BARELY" mention it?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 11:45:18 GMT -8
Who's more foolish - the fool or the fool who follows him?
You views on race did not influence US immigration law whatsoever. Therefore, your views on race are not relevant to US immigration law.
I didn't mention my views on race -- but you were too busy projecting your views on race that you missed that detail. I clearly stated that America's immigration law, including the quota system now in place, originated from racial beliefs -- and that's according to the very politicians that wrote them. You keep harping about the Chinese Exclusion Act -- that was only the first race-based immigration law in the US. Now it's to move on to Lesson 2 about the quota system and why that was established.
“The United States of America, a nation great in all things, is ours today. To whom will it belong tomorrow? . . . The United States is our land. If it was not the land of our fathers, at least it may be, and it should be, the land of our children. We intend to maintain it so. The day of unalloyed welcome to all people, the day of indiscriminate acceptance of all races, has definitely ended.” —Representative Albert W. Johnson
Johnson helped craft the immigration structure that we have in place today -- in 1924 (or is that too far back in history for you?). He established a quota system which excluded nearly every "national origin" except those from the United Kingdom and Germany. A full 86% of permitted immigrants were from those two countries. It significantly stifled immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe (from 200,000+ a year to a mere 4,000+), and basically eliminated all immigration from Asia. Germany's quota was over 14 times that of Italy. The idea was that immigration should not change the "national character" of the country -- at the time know to be white Anglo-Saxon Protestant. Forget about Jews, Catholics, Italians, Poles, Russians, and certainly no Asians. That's not racism?
we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. -- Senator Pat McCarran, 1953 (apparently America has been "cracking" for over the last sixty years...)
McCarran was responsible for an immigration law, still largely in place today and that modified the previous act, that "established a preference system which selected which ethnic groups were desirable immigrants." Truman attempted to veto the bill because "we do not need to be protected against immigrants from (Eastern Europe and Asia)." Congress overruled the veto. They thought otherwise. An immigration law based on ethnic group determinations is not racist?
Yet the fact is that for over four decades the immigration policy of the United States has been twisted and has been distorted by the harsh injustice of the national origins quota system. Under that system the ability of new immigrants to come to America depended upon the country of their birth. Only 3 countries were allowed to supply 70 percent of all the immigrants. Families were kept apart because a husband or a wife or a child had been born in the wrong place. Men of needed skill and talent were denied entrance because they came from southern or eastern Europe or from one of the developing continents. This system violated the basic principle of American democracy--the principle that values and rewards each man on the basis of his merit as a man. It has been un-American in the highest sense, because it has been untrue to the faith that brought thousands to these shores even before we were a country. President Lyndon Johnson.
President Johnson certainly thought it was racist. He should know -- he helped move the Civil Rights Movement along.
They pushed through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, which abolished national origins quotas -- but put into place a system which promoted Western immigration. Quotas were based upon the West/East hemispheres, but the Western hemisphere also had no limit on family reunification. They intended to promote immigration from Western Europe and did not anticipate the large influx of immigrants that would come from Latin and South America. Oops.
Now -- since race is only one issue in immigration -- we can move on to Lesson 3: Economics or Lesson 4: Immigration and Government Spending.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 12:18:48 GMT -8
You've got me there. I am definitely starting to question my own sanity.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 12:22:04 GMT -8
Oh, nice fucking try.
Every single post you've made in this topic drips with your attitudes about race! Who do you think you are kidding?
|
|
|
|
Post by AmericanPride on Dec 29, 2007 12:31:07 GMT -8
I'm still waiting for you to actually counter the argument. The body of text is right there.
|
|
|
|
Post by bounce on Dec 29, 2007 12:35:30 GMT -8
Let me demonstrate why it's so hard to communicate with someone like you.
Here is one of your comments:
I then obliterate your point about our existing immigration law having anything to do with the Chinese Exclusion Act (which was the law in the first place), and then you say THIS:
Here's what I don't get: How do you expect to communicate with people in a meaningful way when you can't follow a logical and meaningful thought?
Your logic is more circular than a slinky!
Ordinarily I'd suggest that you seek professional help, but in your case I think you'd manage to confuse a pro.
So, I think the best thing for you to do to find meaning and acceptance in life is to go to TheHistoryChannel.com and discuss issues there.
As a business owner, I learned that there are some customers you definitely want to send to your competition! You are definitely one of those.
|
|
Maybe because it ACTUALLY is an issue? Ya think? Or don't you?