Mexico is not America’s friend.  The people are taught in school that the Southwest is occupied Mexican territory.  The government prints booklets explaining how to enter the US illegally, and how to work the system for public benefits.

Mexico is waging a slow war against America by using demographic replacement as a strategy to claim American territory.  Mexico needs to be treated as the hostile state that it is.  The Mexicans residing in America need to be rounded up and marched back across the border.  It would be a simple matter to nuke Mexico City if the Mexican government refused to accept the repatriation of their citizens.

The 14th amendment was intended to affirm the citizenship of slaves and their descendants; it was never intended to confer birthright citizenship and create a class of anchor babies to grant de facto permanent residency status to their parents who entered the country illegally.  Anybody who cannot prove they are descended from a citizen born before 1965, or descended from somebody naturalized after that point should be deported.

Fled wrote:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Your argument has been conclusively dead for quite a while, despite recent efforts at resurrection.

Amendments have and will be changed; the Constitution was designed to deal with the realities of a changing world.

Fnord wrote:

The government prints booklets explaining how to enter the US illegally, and how to work the system for public benefits.

Care to back that one up with some sort of verification?

phreddy wrote:

Where are the liberal judges who believe the Constitution is a "living" document which must reflect current societal trends?  This should be a piece of cake for them to reinvent.

I don't think you can make an argument for the supreme court being liberal. The most liberal justice was appointed by Ford, and he was in his 90s. Being liberal in your 90s just means not calling black "nigras."

Taint wrote:

Fnord wrote:

The government prints booklets explaining how to enter the US illegally, and how to work the system for public benefits.

Care to back that one up with some sort of verification?

Here is an English translation of one such booklet put out by the Mexican government.  An illegal bitch at a company I worked for years ago told me about a booklet she received that explained how to work the welfare  system and hinder deportation attempts by the government.

http://www.dallas.org/node/108

fnord wrote:

Taint wrote:

Fnord wrote:

The government prints booklets explaining how to enter the US illegally, and how to work the system for public benefits.

Care to back that one up with some sort of verification?

Here is an English translation of one such booklet put out by the Mexican government.  An illegal bitch at a company I worked for years ago told me about a booklet she received that explained how to work the welfare  system and hinder deportation attempts by the government.

http://www.dallas.org/node/108

Interesting but I'm not sure it's really any different than putting out information about how to inject drugs safely or how to clean your needles. There's nothing in there that encourages or endorses crossing the border illegally and they repeatedly encourage wannabes to go through proper channels.

We publish similar information for Americans who are stupid enough to get caught in drug crimes around the world. The U.S. certainly isn't endorsing the activity. One of the facts of Mexican life is that there is no money and few jobs in Mexico and the government has to deal with the fact that many of its citizens are going to go north, legally or not. If they make that decision, at least they'll have some information to protect themselves.

Last edited by Taint (2010-06-16 20:44:35)

ah297900 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

I don't think you can make an argument for the supreme court being liberal. The most liberal justice was appointed by Ford, and he was in his 90s. Being liberal in your 90s just means not calling black "nigras."

Thankfully, the Supreme Court is not liberal.  However, there are plenty of justices in waiting who believe interpretation of the Constitution should flex with political correctness.

Like you can't criminalize homosexuality, or execute the retardeds any more? The Constitution can be written on my forearm; it's brevity means there are guaranteed to be gaps and conflicts between the amendments that need to be interpreted. Those interpretations are where the changes come in. If the founders, who were never wrong about anything, didn't want the laws interpreted, they would have been as explicit as a traffic code and we wouldn't need a supreme court for anything.

What changes have been made by the supreme court on the basis of political correctness?

If only we were talking about amendments.  These are the lawful means of changing the Constitution.  Judges pulling their favorite social experiments from their asses is not.

To answer your question, here are a few:  School busing to balance racial distribution, job quotas and preferences for women and minorities, Roe v. Wade, and some that you would agree with like criminalizing drugs, homosexuality, slavery, and on and on.  If we simply stick to the simple constitutional principles of equal opportunity and protection under the law, and reservation of all rights not specifically granted to the federal government, we would be just fine.

Last edited by phreddy (2010-06-16 23:54:11)

phreddy wrote:

ah297900 wrote:

phreddy wrote:

Thankfully, the Supreme Court is not liberal.  However, there are plenty of justices in waiting who believe interpretation of the Constitution should flex with political correctness.

Like you can't criminalize homosexuality, or execute the retardeds any more? The Constitution can be written on my forearm; it's brevity means there are guaranteed to be gaps and conflicts between the amendments that need to be interpreted. Those interpretations are where the changes come in. If the founders, who were never wrong about anything, didn't want the laws interpreted, they would have been as explicit as a traffic code and we wouldn't need a supreme court for anything.

What changes have been made by the supreme court on the basis of political correctness?

If only we were talking about amendments.  These are the lawful means of changing the Constitution.  Judges pulling their favorite social experiments from their asses is not.

To answer your question, here are a few:  School busing to balance racial distribution, job quotas and preferences for women and minorities, Roe v. Wade, and some that you would agree with like criminalizing drugs, homosexuality, slavery, and on and on.  If we simply stick to the simple constitutional principles of equal opportunity and protection under the law, and reservation of all rights not specifically granted to the federal government, we would be just fine.

The Supreme Court specifically made job quotas for affirmative action illegal.  That's just one of those things that people who don't like affirmative action always say because they don't know what it is, which is forgivable because affirmative action itself is kind of poorly defined.

Fled wrote:

phreddy wrote:

To answer your question, here are a few:  School busing to balance racial distribution, job quotas and preferences for women and minorities, Roe v. Wade, and some that you would agree with like criminalizing drugs, homosexuality, slavery, and on and on.  If we simply stick to the simple constitutional principles of equal opportunity and protection under the law, and reservation of all rights not specifically granted to the federal government, we would be just fine.

I find it hilarious that so many people think issues decided by the court are always so simple.  They are not, and simplistic maxims and mantras very often do not answer complex questions.  For example, "school busing to balance racial distribution, job quotas and preferences for women and minorities" were specifically enacted and then allowed to protect equal opportunity.  Each case involved and was decided with  reference to  complicated facts and history, including legislative history.  Since conservatives more recently became converts to equal protection, both sides now proclaim their fealty to the principle. 

To oversimplify a bit, liberals think that law ought to be allowed to encourage social change and conservative do not.  Each uses equal protection arguments to support their position.

Here is the difference between conservative and liberal takes on this issue.  Conservatives do not believe you can correct a injustice against one group by condoning a injustice against another.  Minorities and women were treated unfairly in the workplace, in college applications, and sometimes in the courts.  This is not in dispute.  But, you cannot constitutionally correct the problem by mandating prejudicial treatment of whites and men.  To do so isn't social change.  It is reverse discrimination pure and simple.

Fled wrote:

I understand your assertion but think you either fail or refuse to see that there is an equal protection argument on the other side.  The argument is that the equal protection clause allows the state to enact laws, such as busing ordinances, minority set-aside contracting or limited advantages for minority applicants to state universities, in order to protect what the law refers to as "suspect classes" so long as there is a rational basis for the distinction.  (Until the present time, for reasons I do not fathom, the Supremes have been unwilling to identify gays and lesbians as a suspect class.)  Whites, as the majority and the traditional top "caste" in our society, have never been a suspect class.

You can pound the table and insist that civil rights legislation is "reverse discrimination" and not social change, but I believe you are simply ignoring very significant historical realities.  This was and is social change, whether you like the social engineering aspect of it or not.

So you are arguing that One Wrong + One Wrong = One Right??

"Suspect classes" aside; under the Constitution the proper use of the law is to level the playing field.  Logic does not insist that all contracting vendors are equal; you have to compete against the same standards.

Affirmative action did more harm to civil rights in this country than the KKK could have ever accomplished in their wildest dreams.

Taint wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Affirmative action did more harm to civil rights in this country than the KKK could have ever accomplished in their wildest dreams.

Proof?

Clearly it's an article of faith.  In fact, it is a straw dog argument (if you can dignify it as an argument), positing the KKK as the countervailing force that civil rights legislation was to overcome.

Somebody hijacked Em's account.  He (or the highjacker) has agreed with me on just about everything for the past two weeks.

Dmtdust wrote:

You have made a convert!

Doubtful.

Em wrote:

Those supporting affirmative action seem to think that being shut out because of race sucks less if you are a member of the majority and that you're kids won't mind the hunger pains as much as the black kids would.

Well said.  And a perfect example of why we should stick to the original intent of the constitution and not reinvent it to conduct social experiments.

Of course it isn't simple.  If it was simple we wouldn't need a Supreme Court.

Unfortunately 46% of that heaving, seething underclass just happen to be the racial majority

Affirmative Action is all about good intentions but as we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  For example, the poverty level is higher today than at the start of all of this affirmative action nonsense (which probably has more to do with off-shoring and illegal immigration than any thing else).

tojo2000 wrote:

Emmeran wrote:

Unfortunately 46% of that heaving, seething underclass just happen to be the racial majority

Affirmative Action is all about good intentions but as we all know the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  For example, the poverty level is higher today than at the start of all of this affirmative action nonsense (which probably has more to do with off-shoring and illegal immigration than any thing else).

Your link shows that a poverty rates among blacks and hispanics are almost three times that of white people.

There are still far more poor white people than poor blacks or hispanics.  You are hung up on ratio's and I'm talking about raw numbers of people.

But that's OK, we understand; it's very common for people to feel more comfortable helping the gutter class of another race than to deal with the gutter class of their own.  To acknowledge that people of your own race can be so helpless isn't a good feeling; it makes you face the fact that you aren't really any better than anyone else.

This is what is known as liberal racism, it's actually more dispicable than overt racism and much more common.  You see them all the time going down to Mexico to help build a school or down to the inner-city to teach arts and crafts.  They always get pictures of themselves surrounded by the smiling brown faces; little Jesus or little Wanisha. 

You never see them down at the trailer park helping Bubba Jr with his homework; that's just too......I don't know...close to home maybe???

And when it comes hiring time, how many blacks or hispanics are going to get a look at that new career position?  I can tell you how many... ...none.

Fucking liberal hypocrasy - pisses me the fuck off.

tojo2000 wrote:

I never said there weren't more white people that were poor by numbers.  That was never in question.  We're talking about whether there is systemic racial discrimination against a group.  One way to measure that is by the poverty rates.  I'm hung up on the ratio because it's really the only measurement that matters when you're looking to see if a group is being disproportionately discriminated against.  If white people were being discriminated against so badly, then there would be a larger percentage of them feeling the effects.  And by feeling the effects, I mean the measurable effects, not just that you feel like it must be true.

This, again, is demonstrably false.  Do you know who the average welfare recipient is?  Hint: it's not a black person.  Did you know that Habitat for Humanity builds homes  for poor white people in the US?  There are plenty of programs for the poor and homeless on our soil. 

None of this logically justifies any kind of belief that civil rights legislation has caused more discrimination than the KKK, or that white people are poor because they're discriminated against.

Brother, I know far more about poverty than you would ever imagine and I would place a safe bet that it's far more than you've ever experienced, this seems to be yet another example of Tojo preaching from his ivory tower.

Now you claim we have systemic racial discrimination that validates your decision to legislate discrimination against a particular racial group, systemic is always the choosen word when one wanst to create an impression of a situation requiring extreme measures.  Systemic is something you say when you're working very hard to paint rainbows and puppies all over your legislated racism, but it's still intentional racism and yes it has caused more discrimination and separatism - everytime someone was turned aside for being the wrong color it was overt racism. 

Measurable effect?  One person denied for an opportunity based on their skin color, that's measurable and factual. I can give you a list of names of real people from my not so distant past, maybe you can explain to them how you find this to be "fair".  They would be eager to hear how that job wouldn't have alleviated their financial hardships.

Nothing you can do will change that fact that affirmative action is racism and the only reason I didn't compare it to Hitler's evil is that you had put your puppies and rainbows all over it to try and hide the stench of the wrong that is being done.

tojo wrote:

I'm hung up on the ratio because it's really the only measurement that matters when you're looking to see if a group is being disproportionately discriminated against.

No, ratio's are what you go to if you can't be bothered to evaluate the evidence and facts of each case.  Discrimination is only one of the many causes of poverty, yes I know it's the easy one but it only tells a small portion of the story.  Hell, the hispanic poverty numbers tell us that.  Did you know Tojo, that the hispanic poverty level in the US has increased significantly during the latest wave of illegal immigration?  It has, by almost 12 million hispanic peoples, wait....isn't that about the same number that put their worldly possesions in a trash bag and hiked across the border?     Damn our racist asses for causing that.....

Yes Tojo, the ratio's of "poverty by skin color" defines the reasons that they are poor - I remember this from statistics, it was one of the first things they taught us.

However if science were the chosen method for determing what to do about the disparity of poverty we would build ratio's based on genetic makeup, not on historical injustices; or perhaps we would examine the sub-culture and culture of origins as a whole to determine if in fact the apple truly never does fall far from the tree.  We could examine geographic factors and social inputs such as religion and entertainment.  Food would also be a good place to start.  Color of skin would not be a scientific approach, it would be a political approach.



But none of this would validate the injustice of the institutional racism called Affirmative Action. 


Back to basic math Bub, two wrongs never makes a right.


(I'll forgive you the Gut quips; as mine is rather tight and fit so it couldn't have nearly as much weight in the conversation)

Violent crime from across the border is overrunning our border towns and we have to crack down now to stop the sweeping violence before it consumes us!

Fear!

Murder!

Mayhem!

Drug-fueled Rampages!

Last edited by tojo2000 (2010-06-21 13:15:51)

tojo2000 wrote:

Violent crime from across the border is overrunning our border towns and we have to crack down now to stop the sweeping violence before it consumes us!

Fear!

Murder!

Mayhem!

Drug-fueled Rampages!

So Tojo, what is your theory on illegal immigration? 

Do you want us to just open the doors to all comers - cuz be warned are about 500 million people around the world who would love to come here.  What do you propose to do with them?

And if we are going to grant amnesty, what is the cut off?  And what about the poor little kid that arrived 5 minutes after the cut-off?

And where will my kids get jobs?  (Hint: they can't get them now, all of the typical High School jobs are filled with illegal immigrant)

phreddy wrote:

*   *   *
When things pick up the locusts will be on the move.

Is that how you see them?  There but for the grace of gahd. . . . .  I hope that when and if you ever become desperate nobody pulls out a bottle of bug juice for you.