Please quote a racist statement of mine. I have nearly 400 posts, so I'm sure that you should have an easy enough time.
He has plenty in common with Republicans. Yes, there are obvious differences. For one thing, he has a shread of conscience. But don't deny the similarities: He's against abortion, in favor of more control of our borders, and in favor of free-market forces having free reign on everything. He is at best skeptical of evolutionary science. He criticizes the "secularization" of American society. And he seems reluctant, as far as I'm aware, to admit that global warming is a real threat. BUH?! Trust me, most of Paul's supporters aren't from the left. Go lurk on Digg.com. It's infested with Paul lovers. They all talk about teh ebil big gummint. That's right-wing talk.
Enlighten us. Ooh, a conspiracy theory. Haven't heard this one yet. Strangely, I hear more about whether or not the Tenth has been repealed by people who despise the Fourteenth. (Reality tends to be more subtle than your argument.) Given that it still comes up in presidential campaigns, and existed at least long enough to be considered by the Supreme Court in the 1920s, I don't see where the proposition that it was repealed comes from. You're tilting windmills as far as I'm concerned. To the other, why do you object to the notion that people deserve equal protection under the law? In the first place, don't just put up a link and expect someone you already disagree with to read the material and interpret things just like you do. Secondly, there was a time when many found merit in the idea of separatism. After all, whites felt so damn violated by the prospect of having to be equal to their neighbors that many fought quite hard against it. And no, it wasn't the best idea. That's an accusation, not an answer. To the other, I still don't see the assertion of supremacy. Separatism, yes, but not supremacy. You should probably take some time and understand the difference between the two. You can do better than that. At least, I would hope. Or are you prepared to argue that there is no difference between equality and supremacy? How about "kkknazimuslimarabhater"? Given that your arguments appear to equate both separatism and equality to supremacism, at least when it's blacks or Hispanics, you would appear to be treading in racist waters.
yeah, most Mexicans/Chicanos I know, are very patriotic Americans, many with sons/relatives in the military in my family of 5 kids, 3 joined the military, I did 6 years in the USAF, not the FAM, also, came within days of rejoining during the 1st Iraqi War, how about you? ex-GI or just chickenhawk? the jokes on you dude, where you get the data? are you polling 2 Mexicans you don't like? or getting data from a scientific polls, like Gallup, Zogby, etc...? here's a small sample of what you should be looking for in polls
Now you are going to honestly try to tell us that the vast majority of the states that ratified the 14th amendment didn't do so under duress? I bet next you are going to tell us that it wasn't part of the Radical Republican reconstruction plan to force a state to ratify the amendment as per part of the requirements to rejoin the Union of fascism? You are going to try to tell us that there was enough support for the load of crap currently known as the 14th Amendment in the Union to get it passed w/o having to place the Confederate states in a state of duress? Considering the fact that the Constitution deals with the federal government, the 14th Amendment has no Constitutional hold on states and their personal laws. The 10th Amendment is fairly clear to what it states, thus attempting to circumvent the 10th Amendment on a fairly consistant basis is nothing but a disdain for the Constitution. You are going to try and tell us that the 10th Amendment hasn't been repealed by liberals in light of unconstitutional cases such as Roe v Wade? Equal protection under the law? I guess that is what you mean when six individuals can beat another individual nearly to death and recieve no punishment simply on the basis of their race? Equal protection under the law? I guess that is what you mean when individuals are hired or admitted into universities on the basis of their skin color as opposed to their credientals? Equal protection under the law is something that racist liberals strongly oppose. If you are even going to talk about the Black Panthers, then I would have guessed that you knew something about the 10 Point Plan. I guess that you should tell that to the individuals who are in support of self-segregation. I guess that you should read the link to the book that I posted a while ago about the fact that blacks continue to support the idea of separatism, especially within the confines of the public square. Racism is racism, and you will go out of your way to defend it. So you are an advocate of separate but equal? Like I said, please start providing some quotes. Ah yes, you do quite enjoy your separate but equal. I'm sure that you'd love organizations such as MEChA.
Where were they for things such as this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Y721T9nX0k Where are they for MEChA meetings? Where are they for things such as La Voz de Atzlan? While those directly involved with La Voz are a fairly small group, it has ripples all arcoss various racist groups in places such as Los Angles. Why don't they speak up against stuff like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GIW-BZ8oLrk Current GI, 5 down 15 to go. I guess that MEChA doesn't exist? I guess that racists that demand that I speak Spanish in the public education arena, while they refuse to learn languages such as Hangul, despite the fact that where we live there is a significant population of first and second generation Hangul speakers? Would you support the phrase 'por la raza todo, fuera de la raza nada' if la raza mentioned wasn't la raza bronze?
Question, I see 90% of my Republican friends complian about border security. But none of them are supporting Duncan Hunter for President. It seems like Republicans should stop voting in RINO's and actually back someone that's going to support your issues. Most Southern States have Republican Governers. The head of HLS is a Republican, why won't they listen to their base? And why don't you hold them accountable?
Duncan Hunter is a nutjob who will get us into Iran or Pakistan. Dr. Paul will keep the border secure and hopefully look to Ike and Operation Wetback for inspiration on how to deal with the illegals.
Another fact-free conservative? (Ye gads, what the hell's the matter with you?) Apparently it's too much to make the argument yourself? Some folks are still smarting over Loving v. Virginia. The Tenth Amendment has not been repealed by anything. The District Court in Roe v. Wade sided with the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. So did the Supreme Court: The Tenth Amendment, for the record, is not mentioned, either in Justice Blackmun's expression of the Opinion of the Court; nor concurring opinions by Justices Burger, Stewart, nor Douglas; nor dissents by Justices White nor Rehnquist. Furthermore, it is rather difficult for you to claim that the Tenth Amendment has been repealed—especially by Roe v. Wade—since it was part of the basis for Justice O'Connor's 1992 Opinion of the Court in New York v. United States. In 1997, Justice Scalia delivered the Opinion of the Court in Printz v. United States, holding the Brady Act unconstitutional according to the Tenth Amendment. So, yeah. I am going to tell you that "the 10th Amendment hasn't been repealed by liberals in light of unconstitutional cases such as Roe v Wade". In fact, I'm surprised anyone has to tell you that at all. It would help your case immensely if you didn't adopt the fact-free line of discussion: Beaten nearly to death, yet "his usual smiling self" at a party only a few hours later? And what of the corrupt D.A. who, had he done his job, perhaps could have interrupted the growing violence? He charged victims (black) instead of perpetrators (white), exaggerated the charges against the Jena Six, and in the face of escalating racial tensions, threatened to make black students "disappear with a stroke of a pen". There are many issues to be addressed in the Jena incidents, but, strangely, those who are so incensed about Mychal Bell getting a new trial overwhelmingly prefer hysterical, inflated rhetoric that has very little to do with the facts of the case. Given that Bell was sentenced last month, it would seem your claim of "no punishment" is, well, false. The tragedy of the Affirmative Action argument is that people are still refused jobs or admissions because of their ethnicity. Affirmative Action was never a perfect solution, obviously. But trying to cast the empowered majority as "victims" is an exercise in futility to which some folks, like yourself, are, apparently, accustomed. I asked Thiussat to point out the Panthers' call to black supremacy. You eventually responded by posting a link to the Ten Point Plan. Examining the Plan yet again, I do not see the call to black supremacy. You chose to respond to my query on that point. You have chosen the obligation of demonstrating the call to black supremacy. Are you unable to compose an argument? If you intend to make a point, you will, necessarily, be required, eventually, to make the point. Right now, the bulk of your argument on this issue is that I should be looking at the Ten Point Plan and seeing what you see. Quite obviously, I don't. So why don't you put aside the pathetic attempts at condescension and make the point. You really should pay attention to what I'm saying, since you purport to respond to it. Again, more accusations in lieu of an argument. (chortle!) Pay attention. And I'll ask you again: Are you prepared to argue that there is no difference between equality and supremacy? Your disgust at the idea of a black person (e.g. Mychal Bell) being given his equal protection under the law suffices: I guess that is what you mean when six individuals can beat another individual nearly to death and recieve no punishment simply on the basis of their race? Racism is the most likely motive for such a warped assertion. Where are you getting this?
What? Did you actually say this out loud before typing it? How the hell, then, does it spend an entire section DEALING with the states? Article IV of the Constitution clearly enshrines what a state is and is not, what it can do and can not. The Constitution is THE entity which is the bedrock of BOTH the States and the Federal Government. Without it, there is no nation... no states. Or are you referring to the Bill of Rights? Either way, you need to learn what you're talking about? Really? How ignorant are you? The IV Amendment clearly states: 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. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. By this amendment, the Constitution clearly states that individuals are given the same rights and immunities in their dealings withe state as they are with the Federal Government. ~String
