Savage called Latino advocacy group "the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people"
On the May 17 edition of his nationally syndicated radio program, Michael Savage labeled Hispanic advocacy group the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) "the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people." Savage also said of NCLR, "This is the most stone racist group I've ever seen in this country!" despite noting, "It's true they haven't hung anybody."
NCLR describes itself as "the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States," which "conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas -- assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families."
Savage also stated that proponents of stricter immigration laws will be called "racist," adding, "They're going to call you anti-immigrant. They're going to call you nativist. They're going to say, 'Shame, shame on you.' You turn it back on them! You tell them they're the racist for hating America." He added: "You tell them you're not going to be taken over by a group of Hispanic supremacists in La Raza." Referring to NCLR, he said: "[T]hey certainly stand only for one race. That's the name of their group: La Raza -- 'The Race.' "
While the term "la raza" in Spanish literally means "the race," it is often translated as "the people" and usually refers collectively to Mexican-Americans, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, "sometimes extending to all Spanish-speaking people of the Americas."
According to NCLR's website:
The term "La Raza" has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as "the people," or, according to some scholars, "the Hispanic people of the New World." The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world's races, cultures, and religions.
Some people have mistranslated "La Raza" to mean "The Race," implying that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, "La Raza Cósmica," meaning the "cosmic people," was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people. This is an inclusive concept, meaning that Hispanics share with all other peoples of the world a common heritage and destiny.
As Media Matters for America has noted, on the March 31, 2006, edition of The Savage Nation, Savage exhorted listeners to "burn the Mexican flag" in opposition to illegal immigration.
The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, according to Talkers Magazine, making it the third most-listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the May 17 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: They've called us every name under the sun. They've tried everything -- that was George Bush -- and make no mistake about it, you're going to hear yourself called every name under the sun. That's right, they're going to call you racist. They're going to call you anti-immigrant. They're going to call you nativist. They're going to say, "Shame, shame on you."
You turn it back on them! You tell them they're the racist for hating America. You tell them they're the racist for hating white people! For hating European-Americans, you tell them they're the racist. You tell them you're not going to be taken over by a group of Hispanic supremacists in La Raza, because I don't know how in the world a group like La Raza, which in Spanish means "the race," can be invited into the White House and dictate to the White House which way the White House should go.
But make no mistake about it. The Hispanic supremacists in La Raza, they didn't say "all races," they said "the race." This is the most stone racist group I've ever seen in this country! They're the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people! That's how I see it! Now, should I be fined for saying that? Go ahead, fine me.
In my opinion, La Raza is the equivalent of the Ku Klux Klan for the Hispanic people. It's true they haven't hung anybody, but they certainly stand only for one race. That's the name of their group: La Raza -- "The Race." They didn't say "all races." They said, "the race," so they're saying their race is the race, and that means all the other races, who are not Hispanic, are to be subjugated to their race -- the race -- which is superior and supreme. They now are dictating the policies of this country with regard to illegal immigration.
uh this is nothing new. In 1999 Michael Savage wrote an article for newsmax, entitled, "Is La Raza Racist?"
http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1999/12/8/51548
la raza = "the race" - and if you heard a white group call themselves "the race" you'd see al sharpton all over it. just the name of the group is enough to consider them racist and make comparisons with them to the kkk. they are hispanic supremacists, we have them here in arizona. they think they are THE BEST because they are hispanic.
if youre going to chide white people for any sort of racial pride, you have to do the same thing to minorities.
Yeah, I hear guys like this parroting Savage all the time. Pretty pathetic that they can ignore evidence to the contrary.
Do you actually have a life that you live yourself, or does somebody else live it for you (tells you what to think, etc.)?
When Hispanic high school students in Idaho boycott classes en masse, waving the Mexican flag while running around downtown and yelling at people to "go back to Europe--this is our country", one would get the impression that those students are racist.
If you like that kind of conduct, you're beyond help.
personally, my problem with la raza is not their name. what i do object to is the fact that they supported the "one time" amnesty of 1986, which included employer sanctions, but they quickly changed their tune after that. they have constantly objected to any mass raids of workplaces. we're being set up for the same dog and pony show. and pro immigrationists are also pointing to this or that poll, to claim that the american public supports their side. but when it come to actual votes, like in arizona, the public makes their opinion on illegal immigration clear. the flag thing, i think, does get a little overheated, but i have no reason to doubt what you said on the incident in idaho. the truth is that every country in north and south america is an immigrant country. rodriquez is not an indian name. i do know that the press does tend to put a spin on the immigration issue at times. i was watching nbc nightly news the evening this bill was announced, and they had some guy saying that immigrants would pay the social security for baby boomers. that's debatable because polls consistently show that most boomers plan to work at least part time after retiring. it also ignores the taxes we will pay on things like schools for immigrant children. immigrants have children at a higher rate than native born citizens. the nbc report also had a reporter claiming that the los angeles police "broke up" a pro immigration rally a couple weeks ago. no matter what anyone thinks of how the situation was handled, it began because the police were surrounded and being attacked by bottles from protestors. quite a few of the police were injured. that all went unmentioned by the reporter.
I notice how pervasively that no one in this thread (or anywhere on this whole site that I ever recall seeing) seems any too willing to talk about the Aztlan Movement and their primary voice MECHA and VOA (Voice of Aztlan) that wants to totally abrogate the Gasden purchase and reconquest anything between 8 and 11 western states into a Chicano nation..
Read up on them if you actually haven't heard about them and aren' tjust ignoring it as inconvenient in the bleeding heart sense of how to lose you country without even trying.
I guess the difference between a hate group and not in the opinion of the left is whether or not they're one of your supporters, regardless of how hateful they actually are.
MMFA is citing his May 17th broadcast, that makes it a "new" hate rant, regardless of any past manifesto written for a rightwing site.
MMFA did quote him for his 5/27/06 "Burn the Mexican Flag!" rant, in which he also described La Raza as a racist, xenophobic organization.
Oops, that's 3/27/06.
Pete, he was right for saying to burn the Mexican flag. These vermin waved Mexican flags in the streets of America. That's hateful. This is America, not Mexico. It's funny how you libs support the burning of American flags but not Mexican flags.
Flying the Mexican flag is hardly hateful.
Yes, it is hateful to wave the Mexican flag in America. This isn't Mexico. Waving the Mexican flag means that you are loyal to Mexico and not the U.S.A. It's practically sedition. Savage was absolutely right. La Raza="The Race." These people are vile racists.
No its not hateful. Anymore than flying an American flag in Mexico would be hateful. Your xenophobia is showing. We dont throw a fit when an Italian restaurant has an Italian flag.
A hilarious analogy.
A worthless response.
You can't deny it's true.
No, I'm not xenophobic. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with people who immigrate to America legally and assimilate into our culture. My problem is with illegal alien criminals. Illegal alien protesters waving Mexican flags has an obvious connotation: they are loyal to Mexico, not America. Hell, they are trying to reclaim the southwestern United States for Mexico.
What about Irai-Americans walking the streets of Michigan waving Iraqi flags on Fox News? Does this mean that they hate America and want to claim Michigan for Iraq?
So when Italian-Americans attending a Columbus Day parade wave the Italian flag, does that mean they're racist and that they hate America?
How about when rednecks display the Confederate flag, does that mean they hate America, too?
Whoa there! As a "lib" I do not agree with flag burning, but I would defend your right to do so. I would not encourage the burning of our flag or anyone else's flag. As far as calling the people who were waving the Mexican flag hateful, I support their right to do that, but I don't agree with it. Same with you calling them "vermin." By doing that, you are lowering yourself to the level at which you see them. I am not sure that helps your position.
I'll remember that next time I attend an Irish parade, the good ol' octoberfest, greek week festival, and all the other white european background parades who's sole reason for existance is to promote pride in said background.
I am going to the Sicilian Festival in San Diego's Little Italy tomorrow, and I expect to see Sicilian flags flown. Not American, not even Italian - but the flag of a country that hasn't even existed for almost a century and a half.
Now that's hate.
More hilarious analogies.
Another worthless response.
Snoopy, whose, not who's.
So, Snoopy's spelling was your only disagreement?
I actually forgot to correct him on "existance" too. Sorry.
It wasn't my only disagreement, but it was the only one to which I felt like responding. I never attend ethnic parades, and personally speaking, I don't like the idea of Americans waving the flags of other countries in any situation. I would never wave an Irish or Italian flag (I'm part both of those) at a parade; I'd wave an American flag. I have no loyalty to Ireland or Italy; those countries mean nothing to me. However, there's nothing wrong with celebrating one's ethnic background.
What about waving Iraqi flags? Just like an Iraqi community in Michigan did when Baghdad fell? Did you miss it? Fox News ate it up by carrying a live helicopter shot. Is this also hateful?
Conservatives love it when you demonstrate over here about freedom over there. They can't stand it when you demonstrate over here about freedom over here.
I support the RIGHT to burn any flag, including the Mexican or American flag. I also support the RIGHT to criticise those who do either. Weiner probably could understand the distinction IF he would only increase his medication.
Weinerboy
This isn't the first time you've referred to illegal immigrants as "vermin". Where you get the stones to call anyone else racist is beyond me. Your idolatry for all things Weiner has slopped all the way over from being sort of cute (in a sad sort of way) into being an outright form of mental illness. You're cheerfully willing to parrot ANYTHING that that raging fool might say, & that tells us that your own ego is so malformed & so undernourished that you have simply chosen to parasitically attach yourself to this Black Shirt's own dementia as a practical alternative to LEARNING HOW TO THINK FOR YOURSELF!!!
How am I racist?
The word "vermin" carries a lot of historical weight. Savage surely knows this, but you may not. Part of Hitler's campaign to dehumanize the Jewish people was to refer to them as vermin, or "ungeziefer." Savage uses the word knowingly, because his goal is the same: dehumanization of an entire race of people. The fact that you are mindlessly parrotting the term only speaks to the effectiveness of this propaganda technique.
Illegal aliens are a race?
Cute, but we all know who Savage is talking about. You don't hear him ranting about white Canadian illegals waving the Canadian flag do you?
Well, how many illegals from Canada are there?
The Wikipedia entry on immigration says that about 6 percent of illegal immigrants come from Europe and Canada. But since I know you have access to a computer, you could have just looked that up yourself. I'll assume you're just stalling so you can come up some sort of a point.
Well, Savage is against illegal aliens from any country. So am I.
I remember when I was a little boy, and I saw a McDonald's flag flying outside of said restaurant. I asked my father why they had such a flag, and he told me that because America is free, they could fly whatever kind of flag they wanted.
Then along came the likes of Weiner for President, who apparently thinks that McDonald's should not fly a flag with their logo on it, because this is America and not McDonaldland.
Iflurry, I never said that it should be illegal to wave a Mexican flag. Secondly, comparing a McDonald's flag to a Mexican flag is utterly ridiculous.
I never mentioned legality either.
These vermin waved Mexican flags in the streets of America. That's hateful. This is America, not Mexico.
How is it ridiculous? Placing a restaurant's logo next to the symbol of our great nation is A-OK, but wave a Mexican flag and suddenly it's hate?
So if McDonald's has a flag outside the restaurant, anyone who goes there is loyal to McDonald's but not America? I don't get it.
You're right. It's not illegal to do so. It's all in the context. When you have several SoCal cities clogged by protester- the vast majority of them illegally in the country, waving Mexican flags, demanding rights that not only are exclusive to citizens, but in most cases exceed those rights, then it IS all about the context.
And I'm surprised that the McDonald's flag was chosen as an example- in this case one from Taco Bell would have been more appropriate. </sarcasm.
I didn't know we were at war with Mexico. Why else would waving a Mexican flag be hateful.
I guess we should all go to New York and take the Italian flags down from all the Pizzarias. Those hateful Italians.
Oh, I see now valentinian already stole my thunder with the Italian analogy.
Illegal alien protesters waving Mexican flags on the streets as opposed to American flags has the obvious context of "F U, America. We don't respect your laws. We do what we want. It's Mexico's land anyway." That's how it's hateful. After those protesters were roundly criticized for waving Mexican flags, they switched to waving American ones.
Weinerboy
What both you & the Savage Weiner both neglect to mention in your disparaging comments on the the protests of illegal immigrant "vermin" is that they were flying BOTH MEXICAN AND AMERICAN FLAGS! By leaving out this fact, the two of you paint a badly distorted picture of these events, creating an image of the protesters that is wildy at odds with reality. In Weiner's case, this is certainly a deliberate distortion. In your case, however, we can safely write it off to the gullibility that your Weiner worship demands of you.
The idea that these protesters are part of some nefarious conspiracy to seize ti American southwest & to create an autonomous Hispanic region of Aztlan is merely a right wing fantasy. If these people were committed to living under Mexican authority they would simply have stayed in Mexico. They come here for the opportunities... economic, political, & personal... that they cannot find under the rule of the Mexican social & political systems. These are people who... by & large... wish to partake of the American Dream.
Now, as a nation we can bash them, demonize them, dehumanize them, exploit them, & blame them for every conceivable ill that we face as a nation, or we can ultimately embrace them with the same regard in which we have every other wave of immigration that we have experienced.
So, what's it going to be for you, kid? Are you actually capable of getting past this childish hero worship of your hate-spewing idol, or are you going to continue to loyally & unquestioningly march in his goose-stepping parade?
No, we shouldn't reward criminals. If you come here illegally, you should be deported. Illegals are not like all other immigrants. Secondly, Savage has played audio of protesters who say that the southwest is Mexican land or that the "Americas" are all one nation without borders. This is not purely fantasy, although I do believe that the brown supremacists will never succeed in taking back California, etc. As far as waving American flags goes, I don't care. The illegals' agenda is un-American; it matters not that the wiser among them sugarcoat the agenda with American flags so that they seem patriotic.
No, we shouldn't reward criminals. If you come here illegally, you should be deported. Illegals are not like all other immigrants.
Why? So they can come back in a week or so?
Secondly, Savage has played audio of protesters who say that the southwest is Mexican land or that the "Americas" are all one nation without borders. This is not purely fantasy, although I do believe that the brown supremacists will never succeed in taking back California, etc.
I could probably find you audio of white supremacists saying similar things about their anti-immigrant position. What's your point?
As far as waving American flags goes, I don't care. The illegals' agenda is un-American; it matters not that the wiser among them sugarcoat the agenda with American flags so that they seem patriotic.
Yes, America is all about what side of an imaginary line you were born on...
Iflurry, once again, I have no problem with people immigrating to America legally. I'm not "against people" just because they're born in Mexico.
As far as the illegals coming back a week later, BUILD A WALL. Also, put troops on the border.
Granting these people amnesty is unfair to those who don't break the rules. If they truly loved America, they wouldn't break the rules. BTW, many of these illegals are not interested in the American Dream. As Savage has said, they don't all come here to work. Many bat out babies and collect welfare, Many others go to prison. 30% of federal inmates are illegal aliens. Bush has even hoodwinked the liberals on this issue.
Granting these people amnesty is unfair to those who don't break the rules. If they truly loved America, they wouldn't break the rules. BTW, many of these illegals are not interested in the American Dream. As Savage has said, they don't all come here to work. Many bat out babies and collect welfare, Many others go to prison. 30% of federal inmates are illegal aliens. Bush has even hoodwinked the liberals on this issue.
What about the true, blue American citizens who "bat out babies and collect welfare," while "many others go to prison"? You just fine and dandy with them, as long as they were born here?
And would someone please explain to me how you can qualify for welfare if you are not a citizen?
Iflurry, well we can't deport American citizens who bat out babies and abuse welfare. We have no choice but to keep them here. Illegal aliens who do the same are different.
<i>Granting these people amnesty is unfair to those who don't break the rules. If they truly loved America, they wouldn't break the rules.</i>
You can't love America if you break the rules? Hmm... I wonder how many people here have drunk before turning 21, or downloaded mp3s, or ran red lights, or ...
<b>As Savage has said, they don't all come here to work. Many bat out babies and collect welfare,</b>
Their birth rates aren't all that much higher than native-born citizens.
<i>Many others go to prison. 30% of federal inmates are illegal aliens. </i>
Source? I hear claims about the crime rates of illegal immigrants all the time, but when I go to look it up, most of it seems to be blowing smoke.
Pete, he was right for saying to burn the Mexican flag. These vermin waved Mexican flags in the streets of America. That's hateful.
First of all: Mexico is in America, so I imagine that what you meant to say was that you find the waving of a Mexican flag in the United States hateful.
But to be serious.... THAT'S your argument? They waved a non-U.S. flag in the U.S. and therefore that action is hateful? You must really despise the Irish and their hateful St. Patrick's Day rallies in which they celebrate their Irish heritage.
And I don't suppose you have an opinion about people who wave the flag of the Confederacy, thereby celebrating the very states that succeeded from the United States. I mean, if that kind of statement is not directly opposed to the United States, what is?
Come on. Waving a foreign flag "in the streets" (...as opposed to where?...) is, in and of itself, neither hateful nor patriotic nor anything else. I'm willing to listen to your argument if you have one, but so far you're just sounding immensely prejudiced.
Well, since Al Qaeda means "the base," I don't think you (and Savage) want to focus so much on literal translations when your Bushie is fond of referring to his staunch supporters as "my base."
My Bushies? Both Savage and I have made it abundantly clear that we don't like Bush.
I meant to say, "My Bushie?"
Even though he looooooves Alberto Gonzales?
Savage loves Alberto Gonzales just because he is against the Dems persecuting him? I don't think so. Savage complained a couple of years ago when it was rumored that Bush would nominate Gonzales, a liberal Republican, for the Supreme Court.
No one is chiding others for racial or ethnic pride. The distinction is the one between good and better. I think it is good to be me, if I then think that means I am better than anyone else the rubicon has been crossed.
"Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we...should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot...Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny." (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)
"For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada." That two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. "For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing."
You may want to try reading something in addition to Savage as your source of information:
Damn facts, they always get in the way of a good talking point.
Val, La Raza supports amnesty for illegal aliens. That makes them communist vermin. Savage has them pegged. Anyone who supports Bush's amnesty is a TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Whoops:
Do you think this guys might really be Mickie S. or just someone who wants to be him?
I wonder what happened to "MICHAELSAVAGEFORPRESIDENT 4 PRESIDENT?"
That's amnesty. If you're not for deporting illegal aliens, you're for amnesty. No path to citizenship.
Anything that in any way rewards people who came to America illegally is amnesty.
It's funny how liberals AGREE WITH BUSH ON THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liberals have more in common with Bush than I do. IF YOU SUPPORT THIS AMNESTY GARBAGE, YOU ARE A TRAITOR!!!!!!!!!!!
Bush hates America. Kennedy hates America. McCain hates America. Savage for president.
Bush is monumentally incompetent. Kennedy and McCain are irrelvant except to their Senatorial duties and Weiner is clinically insane.
Michael, sweetheart, take two of those pills, not one.
Yep, there is no hope for this guy.
Besides, if "Savage is running for President" - why isn't he on any of the Repub. debates? And do you think the American people will vote for someone who counters the other side's argument with "MORONMORONMORONMORONMORONMORONMORONMORONMORONMORONMORONGETTHISFILTHYBUM OUTOFMYSHOW!"?
Savage has said that Bush is the worst president ever. That's bound to get him votes if he runs.
The only reason Savage "hates" Bush is that Bush hasn't "killed a 100 million of them".
Actually, Savage dislikes Bush because Bush isn't a conservative. Bush has expanded government. Bush is pro illegal alien. Bush fought a pc war.
Then how on Earth did he get the approval of the conservative party? That's like saying Obama isn't a Democrat.
Iflurry, Bush has expanded government. He's pro illegal alien. He fought a pc war. He's not conservative, regardless of who supported him. His father isn't a conservative either. Rudy Giuliani is a Republican. Is he a conservative?
The GOP isn't the conservative party. It's just the less liberal party. Bush is a Republican, but he's not a conservative.
'Conservative' isn't exactly a party designation (at least in the US).
Michael, how are you going to roundup and deport 12 to 20 million people?
Are you going to use boarder patrol? Ops, no we don't have enough to control out boarder at it is. Are you going to use local police? No, we don't have enough to cover our local municipalities. I know, you are going to use the Natl Guard! Ops can't use them because there in Iraq.
The current bill, although I believe the details are not known, will not help the problem but calling people traitors and vermin won't help as well.
They are here and someone wants them namely corporate America and small business's. They have had families during the time that they have been here so to start deporting mothers and fathers while leaving their children behind is not the answer either.
All I'm trying to say is the traitor and vermin are not the people who are here. The traitor and vermin are those who use illegal labor and take advantage of labor which is illegal. Remember we are a nation of immigrants first.
"Deport"? If I know Michael Hitler-Savage, he would put all of them into the gas chambers.
Megabot, stop defaming Savage.
I'm not defaming, I'm only telling the truth.
You're not telling the truth. Savage would not gas illegal aliens.
Pearlene, you like others are stuck in a mindset of "big business usin' that cheap Mexican labor".
Open your eyes. It's the smallest roofing contractor, the small homebuilder, the small forestry firms, the ranchers and farmers (most of them small), the little landscape companies, the lawn maintenance outfits, on and on.
I say prosecute 'em all (the employers).
And we are paying $35 an hour for our lawn maintenance or any other basic labor, we just like to think we are getting away with exploiting somebody at a cheap labor rate. We are only fooling ourselves.
But that old line about Big Business being the beneficiary of cheap illegal labor is ridiculous.
Ever heard of "Tyson" chicken? Or how about the huge seafood processing plants along the gulf coast? Why do you hate small businesses so much?
actually, it's a lot of people. but you cannot exclude big business from benefiting from illegal immigration. the meat packers in the midwest broke the back of the unions with illegal labor.
Swift Meatpacking is a small company?
It's border, not boarder.
Savage is for building a wall, putting the National Guard on the borders, and even possibly putting tanks on the borders. He also states that since Mexico encourages its people to come here illegally that America should take one barrel of oil per month (by force) from Mexico per every illegal alien. Savage is also for increasing fines on businesses that hire illegals by a tremendous amount. He's for amending the Constitution so that babies born in America to two illegal aliens are not citizens. He's for denying public education and healthcare to illegal aliens. That way, illegal aliens will deport themselves. We won't even have to round them all up. Problem solved. Savage will be the greatest president in our nation's history. He will fix the immigration problem, the problem of our national debt, and the war on terror. God bless Savage!
Savage is for building a wall, putting the National Guard on the borders, and even possibly putting tanks on the borders. He also states that since Mexico encourages its people to come here illegally that America should take one barrel of oil per month (by force) from Mexico per every illegal alien.
Great ideas. 1) Start a huge, expensive engineering project that sounds like a punchline, 2) Pull our troops out of Iraq (this one I actually agree on!), and finally, 3) Declare war on Mexico. I suppose we can always cut a little money from the education department to fund it all. That, or borrow it from China.
He's for amending the Constitution so that babies born in America to two illegal aliens are not citizens. He's for denying public education and healthcare to illegal aliens. That way, illegal aliens will deport themselves. We won't even have to round them all up. Problem solved.
We have public health care? Are these illegal immigrants skipping over the US entirely and heading straight into Canada?
Savage will be the greatest president in our nation's history. He will fix the immigration problem, the problem of our national debt, and the war on terror. God bless Savage!
Yeah, just try finding enough people to vote for him. California is a huge swing state you know, and not exactly the kind of place Weiner would be most popular in.
Pearl, Savage is for getting the troops out of Iraq and all other countries around the world. We will be able to defend our borders under Savage.
How is a war with Mexico supposed to help us defend our borders?
Pearl, yes, we should deport fathers and mothers while leaving their children behind in America. That serves them right for breaking the laws. Besides, those fathers and mothers could bring their children back to Mexico with them unless, of course, Mexico is preventing them from doing that.
Except that we don't deport citizens for being born to the wrong parents, and we certainly don't seperate children from their parents just to teach the parents a lesson. Try to at least ACT like a human from time to time.
Jscott, they won't be considered citizens when Savage and his followers get the Constitution changed.
Actually it was just in the news that some woman who came to America illegally twenty years ago and had children born in America is being deported. Once again, it serves her right. If you disagree, then YOU ARE A BUSHBOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Why doesn't she take her kids to Mexico with her?
Maybe because SHE WANTS A BETTER LIFE FOR HER KIDS? I love how we're either Savage-Loving Real True Americans to you, or Bushbots. Like Jscott said:
Try to at least ACT like a human from time to time.
Iflurry, that wasn't her right. She has no right breaking our laws.
Not all laws are created equal.
We are a nation of legal immigrants. I'm sick and tired of hearing the tired old "We are a nation of immigrants" argument to defend illegal alien vermin.
do you really and truly want to influence anyone? or are you just here to act like a smart alec teenager? there is no need to use terms like vermin. you're a jerk for doing so.
Val, Damn them facts :-)
"Five exclamation points : sure sign of an insane mind"
And YOU are calling someone a vermin because of their support for a purely political policy which makes you an un-American moron.
Amnesty for people who broke the law is un-American.
"Amnesty for people who broke the law is unamerican." - Weinerforpresident
Amnesty for people who HAVEN'T broken the law is POINTLESS!
That's what amnesty IS, son... forgiveness for breaking the law.
Mescal, and they shouldn't be forgiven. If you break the law, you should pay the consequences. Excuse me for being redundant.
... and if the law is unjust?
The law isn't unjust. What you're basically arguing is that there should be open borders. That's great. What if a hundred million people decided to come to America tomorrow? What about people with diseases coming to America? What about old people who will no doubt live off the government coming to America? What about terrorists coming to America? Did you know that border patrol agents have caught non-Hispanic people tyring to cross the border?
Sorry the white fat cats are much scarier to me. Give some context, is this a singular event. Whats this "spokesman's" history, what is he saying today?
Hooray- someone else dropped tha "MechA" bomb (Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán,) .. read their manifesto some time- they've gotten better at hiding the agenda in the past couple of years, but if you read back to the roots of MechA and the Aztlan movement starting in the early 1970's based on other "brown beret" type movements from around the southwest, within the Univesity of California system (UCLA in particular) you'll find that they're nothing but a racist hate group with a very threatening agenda-
Here's a little "sample" of just one article (sounds like they used MMFA as their model) from the Voice of Aztlan:
<> LA VOZ DE AZTLAN NEWS BULLETIN <><>.<>.<> Los Angeles, Alta California <>.<>.<>
May 16, 2007
LOS ANGELES: Zionist elected to the Los Angeles School BoardTamar Galatzan, a high level B'nai B'rith operative and a former Chief Counsel of the notorious ADL of B'nai B'rith was elected to the seven member Los Angeles Unified School Board yesterday. The ADL is alleged to be a branch of the Israeli MOSSAD. The Los Angeles office of the ADL, where Galatzan had her office, came under close scrutiny recently for spying on Arab, Muslim and Christian activists who are critical of Israel and its policies against the Palestinian people. They collect and maintain extensive files on pro-Palestinian activists in the US which they then send to the MOSSAD in Israel say the allegations.
Note that it's not "Los Angeles CA, USA" but "Alta California"? Hmmm.. not too subtle if you ask me.
Read even more of their Anti-American/Anti-Semitic spew at: http://www.aztlan.net/
and read all about the MeChA consttution and so forth here- http://www.panam.edu/orgs/mecha/nat.html
You will excuse me if a little group at my girlfriend's university does not have me quaking in fear for the future of the Republic.
Tell me, how many carrier battle groups does MEChA have? How many Strykers, how many F-118s?
ANd you'll excuse me if I ignore your comment as ignorant or willfully blind. An army of ants can kill an elephant with a thousand stings and devour it. Do you even know what MeChA and the whole Aztlan movement is about? You'd be among the first to decry racists for their policies of hatred and malevolence. You can excuse it because this case happens to involve one of the left's darling pet groups?
THe fact is that those thousands of stings in the real world analogy are the bleeding coming off our economy and social safety net each and every day. It's the vast influx of thousands of illegal border crossers every week. It's the illegals (and I refuse to calle them undocumented workers) that comprise a staggering percentage of our prison population. It's the millions of dollars in taxpayer money that gets misdirected every year. It's the hospital emergency rooms that are closing left and right in SoCal because they can't sustain being used as the primary care for illegals.. The list goes on and on... If they want to be here, then be here legally, and any racial or nationalistic group that wants to subvert the sovereignity of the US should be outlawed and not given a mantle of liberal protection.
"They're the Ku Klux Klan of the Hispanic people! That's how I see it!"
"Civil rights (...) it's a racket. It's a racket that is used to exploit primarily heterosexual, Christian, white males' birthright and steal from them what is their birthright and give it to people who didn't qualify for it."
Don't you dare compare people to the Klan when YOU are the one opposing civil rights, you Savage Nazi.
Well said Megabot. You took the words and quote from me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Savage said it himself. He is purely racist.
And when will Savage learn that fighting for the rights of someone else does not trample on the rights of "white, heterosexual, Christian males"?
Wrong, TMAN. Affirmative action does, in fact, trample on the rights of white males.
Gee, you sound hungry. How about a nice WAAAAAAHburger with a side of French cries?
Affirmative action tramples on the self esteem and integrity of those it was meant to help too. As long as the elitist left can convince the minority that they can't exist without Affirmative Action, it only prolongs the BS. ANd before any and all of you lefties jump on me, when I was going to college, I gave my student advisor fits! I'm half native american. I REFUSED and I mean ABSOLUTELY REFUSED to list myself as native american on any and all paperwork. Know why? Because I can and did make it without anyone telling me that I couldn't make it without some kind of help. The advisor was ripped because, wow.. an injun! that one would sure help the quota!
Bah. Affirmative action is one of the worst liberal fever-driven dreams ever imposed on minorities in the country. It's lonnnng outlived it's usefulness and only continues to keep the supposedly oppressed, oppressed for the good of the feel-good left.
Megabot, Savage is criticizing the current Civil Rights movement, not the past. Currently, the Civil Rights movement is garbage. Remember, affirmative action SCREWED Savage out of professorships. He's a victim of the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. Go Savage!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yeah, "GO SAVAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Take away all the civil rights from those filthy colored, Hispanic, lesbian people and give it to the white, heterosexual males who burn the cross where Jesus died for our sins.
Do you REALLY feel comfortable supporting a Nazi bid for the Presidency?
Savage is not for screwing minorities. However, he's also not for screwing white men in favor of minorities. He's not a Nazi.
Yeah, just think of all the white, non-Jewish heterosexual males that died in the gas chambers at Auschwitz.
Iflurry, actually Hitler did execute Christians. However, when I said that Savage is not a Nazi, I wasn't connecting that statement to the previous one. Savage is not for screwing minorities or white people. He's a totally fair individual.
Savage most certainly does not support the KKK.
Militant racist organization... sounds like Weiner to me.
Iflurry, it doesn't sound like Savage to me. He's not a racist. La Raza is racist.
100% correct Dr. Savage. La raza is a racist organization. While they're not quite the kkk they are racists.
This is fair. La Raza is associated with the Democrat Party, as was Robert Byrd's Ku Klux Klan.
You know nothing. The KKK was supported in the late 1800's by Southern Democrats, who are now known as republicans. When the DemocratIC Party passed the Civil Rights Act in the sixties, the Southern Democrats (known as Dixiecrats) fled the DemocratIC Party and joined The REPUBLICAN Party. BTW, it is not the Democrat Party, it is the DemocratIC Party, but of course you already know that. And the fact that you have to go ALL THE WAY back to Byrd's LONG AGO HISTORY of racist behavior, which he completely and sincerely recanted DECADES AGO, reveals your glaring lack of intellectual honesty. Find someone besides Sean Hannity to parrot for a while.
Wrong. Most southern Democrats did not become Republicans. Byrd didn't. Gore, Sr. didn't. Wallace didn't. Please stop embarrassing yourself. It's the big liberal lie that the racist southern Democrats all became Republican, and now the GOP supports racism. Total nonsense. The GOP is not for getting rid of the Civil Rights Act or bringing back segregation and slavery. Just total nonsense by the libs.
Clinton's hero Fulbright didn't.
Jscott, we call it the Democrat Party (and sometimes Democrap) because "Democratic" sounds good. It's deliberate; it is not bad spelling. Secondly, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democraps voted for the Civil Rights Act.
Oh, we KNOW it's deliberate, and we also know it's because you are are microscopically small-minded while being dramatically obtuse. But it doesn't matter, as we will continue to correct your childish slur, because unlike you, we have self-respect.
Byrd recanted, and the libs forgive him because he's a Democrat. Thurmond recanted, but no forgiveness. Why? It's because he wasn't a Democrat anymore. If I remember correctly, Byrd used the "n" word on national TV in the not so recent past.
If I remember correctly, Byrd actually opposes affirmative action, although I could be mistaken. He's allowed to oppose it because he's a Dem, yet Thurmond was called a "racist" for opposing it because he was in the GOP.
Those KKK supporters who HAVENT unlike Byrd seen the error of their ways and appolgized are now ReNAMBLAcans
Solon, I would think that the views of NAMBLA are more in line with the Democrat Party than the GOP. Why do you call them ReNAMBLAcans?
You would think that. You'd also be a moron.
Which party protected a pedophile congressman?
No, I wouldn't be a moron. Here in California, when politicians were recently debating a law that cracked down on child molesters (that is, making tougher rules for where they can live and increasing penalties for possessing child porn), the Democrats proposed a much weaker bill than the Republicans. Also, when the voters of California recently passed a proposition dealing with perverts, only one county voted against it. That county was San Francisco, which is the most liberal county in the state. I don't think that it's a coincidence. Liberals are soft on perverts. Conservatives actually support the death penalty for these vermin.
"You know nothing. The KKK was supported in the late 1800's by Southern Democrats, who are now known as republicans."
Not true. The KKK's members were overwhelming Democrats well into the 20th century. They nearly shut down the 1920 Democratic National Convention, FDR's Supreme Court pick, Hugo Black, was in the KKK, Harry Trumna flirted with joining the KKK, and Robert Byrd was a Kleagle with the KKK.
"When the DemocratIC Party passed the Civil Rights Act in the sixties, the Southern Democrats (known as Dixiecrats) fled the DemocratIC Party and joined The REPUBLICAN Party."
Actually, a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights bill. A Republican, Everett Dirksen of Illinois, led the effort to pass the bill in the Senate. Other than Strom Thurmond (who switched parties in order to support Goldwater's presidential run), few Democrats left the party and joined the GOP. Robert Byrd (a "northern" Democrat), Al Gore, Sr., Howell Heflin, William Fulbright (Clinton's mentor), Fritz Hollings and most other Democrats stayed with the Democrat Party and died Democrats. (Think about it: If a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats passed the civil rights bills during the 1960s, why would segregationists in the Democrat Party want to switch to the GOP?)
"BTW, it is not the Democrat Party, it is the DemocratIC Party, but of course you already know that. And the fact that you have to go ALL THE WAY back to Byrd's LONG AGO HISTORY of racist behavior, which he completely and sincerely recanted DECADES AGO, reveals your glaring lack of intellectual honesty."
Byrd used the "N" word on national television just a few years ago, not DECADES AGO. Here's the major difference between the two parties. Byrd served in the KKK and was able to become the Democrats' Majority Leader in the Senate. In sharp contrast, when David Duke, a former KKK member, tried to run as a Republican, GOP chairman Jim Nichols said the Republican Party had no room for someone like Duke. The Democrat Party has always been more racist.
"Find someone besides Sean Hannity to parrot for a while."
I knew that Republicans were responsible for the passage of the civil rights acts during the 1960s long before Hannity came along.
A little misleading Kevin about the percentage of votes...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964
By party and regionNote: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
The Senate version:
Nothing misleading in my post. It is a fact that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights acts during the 1960s. Your information does nothing to disprove that fact.
Try again.
but the "solid south" of the democrats became the solid south of the republicans. that's a fact too. and in 1964, the republicans voted for goldwater, who opposed the 64 civil right act. as their presidential candidate. in 1980, reagan, calling for "states rights", kicked off his presidential campaign in philadelphia, mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in 64. don't think there wasn't a mesage in that?
Actually the south isn't solidly GOP. When it was the "solid Democrat south," Republicans couldn't get elected dog catcher in that region. Now while all the southern states voted for Bush in both 2000 and 2004 (by south, I mean the 13 states now considered to be the south, including Texas and Oklahoma but not including Maryland, West Virginia, and DC), Democrats still regularly get elected to high offices like Governor and U.S. Senator. It's not appropriate comparison.
that's untrue. eisenhower and nixon both carried florida twice. and democratic senators are the exception in the south now.
correction. to make my point, nixon three times. the first was 1960.
Well, Florida is only part of the south in terms of geography. Southerners don't consider peninsular Floridians to be southerners.
i was mainly speaking about the solid south in terms of presdiential elections. i'll make it something you can't disagree with. the mainly democratic south has become the mainly republican south.
You're mistake is making the assumption that the South has not changed since the 1960s. Look at Tennessee. In 1964, segregationist Al Gore, Sr. voted against the civil rights act because that's what he believed his constituents wanted. In 2006, Tennessee nearly elected an African-American as U.S. senator. When Democrats dominated the south, a black man running the Senate would have been unthinkable. Today, as the GOP dominates the South, it was a strong possibility. Also, look at the minorities in the South who have run for federal office as Republicans. Republicans in the 2000s will accept minorities as candidates. Democrats in the South during the 1960s would not. JFK's campaign even had to ask Sinatra to keep Sammy Davis, Jr. from making appearances during the campaign in 1960. Davis, a Democrat, later openly supported Richard Nixon, who was not ashamed to be associated with an African-American.
Okay, Me. I'll agree that the south is more for the GOP now.
Sorry, I should have said, "an appropriate comparison."
Also, DC is not a state, but, in the context of the presidential election, it is for all intents and purposes a state.
No, I don't see a mesage or message in that. Are you saying that Reagan supported the murder of civil rights activists? Reagan actually supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He wasn't liberal enough for guys like Jackson and Sharpton, but Reagan was in no way a racist against blacks.
Why do liberals see "states' rights" as a code phrase for "racism"? States' rights have a lot more to do than with just issues of race.
sorry i mistyped. reagan had a choice, and of all the places he chose to open his campaign.... speaks for itself.
I don't think that it speaks for itself.
then you can't hear.
Are you saying all the people in the town were responsible for the murders of those civil rights activists? I can't see how you can condemn a whole town for the acts of a few. It's kind of like saying Bush should not visit Topeka because they segregated the schools there 50 years ago. You need a better argument than the one you have presented thus far.
Because it's "code phrase" for racism, first and foremost.
Just putting everything into context. There is no doubt that more democrats voted against it, BUT the key here is that 99% those democrats were part of the confederacy. They were also the majority party at the time. In the north (the faction that actually introduced the bill) however, a higher percentage of democrats NOT republicans voted for the bill.
DTRAIN, Please allow me.KEVIN1007, You Been Served. It’s ON. My misguided friend, you are mistaken. There is actually quite a bit of misleading information in both your first response to me and your response to DTRAIN. I suspected at first that you probably already knew that, but now I think you actually believe that load of tripe. If I may be so presumptuous, I will attempt to correct the record.First, my statement that Southern Democrats supported the KKK in the late 1800’s was not meant to be irrespective of their affiliation into the early 20th century. My point was simply that it was a long f***ing time ago.Secondly, We all know Robert Byrd was in the KKK half a century ago. He said in 1993 that it was the worst mistake of his life. He said it was an albatross he would wear for the rest of his life, and that his obituary would point out his affiliation. Fortunately, people can change, and many people believe that he has and respect him for the courage to do so.
Third, I don’t know what Harry Truman THOUGHT about doing, but I know what he DID. He integrated the armed forces, signed an executive order making lynching a federal offense, and created the impetus for the civil rights acts of the sixties. THAT was why in 1948 Strom Thurmond ran against him for president as a Dixiecrat. Their motto was “Segregation Forever”. He “officially” left the Democratic Party for the GOP in ‘64 to support Goldwater, who voted against the civil rights act. Goldwater (R) was supported overwhelmingly by the Deep South, but lost in a landslide in the rest of the country.
I saved the biggest falsehood for last. This one has been debunked before, but like your favorite old smut rag, it’s fun to drag out again and again. Like most good lies, this one has an element, more like an illusion, of truth.
You say that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in the House and the Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act. You’re looking at the totals by party, rather than DTRAIN’s link by party and region, then touting a higher percentage of a smaller base number and comparing the parenthetical percentages. Yeah, 82% of R’s in the Senate voted for, but that’s 27 of only 33, and they were ALL from the north. That’s compared to ONLY 68% of the D’s voting for, that’s 68% of 2/3 of the senate, and all but one of them was from the north. By saying a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act, you are implying that Republicans led the charge, while Democrats lagged behind, and that the Republicans somehow deserve more credit for it’s passage. Overall, the Republican Yay votes were only 47% of the House Yays, and a measly 37% of the senate total while the Democrats provided 53% of the Yays in the House and 63% of the Senate total. Pretty nifty spin, though.
(Continued next post)(Excess word count)(Continued from previous post)
What this really says, is that rather than Democrats vs. Republicans, it was clearly North vs. South, with roughly 95% of the North for, and 95% of the South agin’ (hee, hee). Why is this significant? Just look at the ‘68 and ‘72 elections. In ’68, the 13 Confederate States (AL, AR, FL, GA, LA, MS, NC, SC, TN, TX, VA) voted 29% for the liberal Hubert Humphrey, and the other 71% was split between Nixon (32%) and avowed racist George Wallace (39%). In ’72, the liberal George McGovern got basically the same vote as Humphrey (28% as opposed to 29%), while the ENTIRE remainder of the vote (72%) went to Nixon. Now, your average slack-jawed, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, Fox News watching moron might struggle with this, but I’m sure the Geico Cavemen could see the correlation. The ENTIRE southern racist bigot-voting block went to, wait for it, the REPUBLICAN. When the Civil Rights Act passed, President Johnson said, “I fear we have lost the south for a generation.” He misunderestimated.
Finally, from a purely anecdotal perspective, I have to say that YES, I am a proud Democrat. I am personally acquainted with a great number of Democrats, and I can confidently say that there is not a racist thought between them. On the other hand, many of my Republican acquaintances have openly and proudly graced me with their considered opinions of the “inferior races”. It’s amazing what people will say when they assume that similar pigment relates to similar viewpoints, so please do me a favor, and try not to be so smug when you ask, “Why would segregationists in the Democrat [sic] Party want to switch to the GOP?” The truth is it’s less a case of politicians switching parties, than is it the voters. The right-wing politicians simply followed along.
I sincerely hope you read this, and take a moment to consider the facts. Kevin, you are obviously not illiterate, but debate is more than slapping each other with reams of talking points. It is an exchange of ideas, and an opportunity for self-examination. I’m not sure if it’s self-serving aggrandizement, or simply the late hour, but I think the attainment of wisdom is more valuable than the securing of bragging rights.
P. S. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you, but I had a family matter, and this just couldn’t wait until tomorrow (Yes, Democrats have families, AND family values too). And apparently, this is how I now spend my Saturday nights.
Good Night.
BTW, it’s not always Clinton’s fault.I disagree that Democrats have family values or that there's no such thing as a racist Democrat. Liberals in my own family who have since passed away said the "n" word. Let's also not forget that many liberals hate white people, especially white males. Al Sharpton is a liberal, and he hates Jews. Ditto for Jesse Jackson.
I certainly don't doubt there are racists in your family.
Jscott, my point was that they were libs.
I don't see myself as a racist. I don't care about race. I care about ideology. I'd prefer a black conservative to a white liberal any day of the week.
gee, that's convincing. the "libs" in your family used the n-word. that would tend to go against most people's experience.
Me, yup. They were FDR libs. They supported the Dems because of unions. However, they weren't too keen on black folk, and they were against interracial marriage. They would have been angry had I dated a black girl.
"The truth is it’s less a case of politicians switching parties, than is it the voters. The right-wing politicians simply followed along."
Please tell us when Robert Byrd, Howell Heflin, Fritz Hollings, Al Gore, Sr., and other segregationists switched from the Democrat to Republican Party in order to "follow along."
I never said ALL of them. Some switched, some didn't, some left the congress. The point is, the SOUTH was racist. The SOUTH fought against the Civil Rights Act. When it passed, the SOUTHERN racists became overwhelmingly Republican, as the '68 and '72 elections CLEARLY PROVED.
I guess that's why Sammy Davis, Jr. campaigned for Richard Nixon. JFK, a northern Democrat refused to allow Davis to be an the inauguration in 1961, even though Davis, a Democrat, strongly supported him.
I think you need to study this issue a bit more. That might preclude you from making all these ridiculous statements regarding racists in the GOP. The record shows that the vast majority of segregationist stayed with the Democrat Paty and died Democrats. That's an inconvenient truth, a truth that even led Al Gore to lie about his own father's opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s.
Jscott, yet the GOP didn't switch its position on the Civil Rights Act. The South still votes GOP. It's obviously for other reasons than just race.
Lynching shouldn't be a federal offense. Lynching is murder, which is a state crime. I honestly don't see the interstate commerce argument for the federal government getting involved in that issue. That's an example of the federal government overstepping its bounds.
Weinerboy
You continue to demonstrate yourself to be completely clueless when it comes to history (among many other things). The reason that the Federal Government passed antilynching laws was that the racism that almost completely permeated the Southern political & social systems pretty much PRECLUDED CONVICTING THOSE THAT ENGAGED IN THE MURDER & TERRORISM THAT LYNCHING HAS HISTORICALLY CONSISTED OF! Southern blacks... as a whole... were denied their Constitutionally-mandated civil rights with impunity. Southern states... over the course of an ENTIRE CENTURY... refused to bring these violent criminals to justice, forcing black people into a perpetual status of peasantry & neo-slavery. 'States Rights' was the Southern code for violent racial oppression. Federal anti-lynching laws were essential in ending this vicious reign of white terror.
If you are ignorant of this simple FACT, then you are simply unable to intelligently discuss these issues, & therefore should show the basic decency to excuse yourself from such discussions. I urge you to save yourself from further intellectual humiliation by refraining from making any more such statements until you have educated yourself on these issues. And by educating yourself, I DON'T mean repeating Weiner's hateful reality-challenged ramblings.
oooohhh...solid comeback dude. I imagine you mumbling that reply while looking at the floor and scuffing your foot. Stop embarrasing YOURSELF.
Uuuhh...that reply is for MICHAELSAVAGEFORPREZNINT, not my friend Mescal.
Jscott, I'm not changing my view here. I still don't see how lynching can be a federal issue constitutionally. I also oppose federal hate crimes statutes for the same reason. Crimes like murder, rape, and physical abuse are state issues. Now if a state only arrests blacks who lynch whites but not whites who lynch blacks, there could be an equal protection argument there. The families of black victims could sue the government. However, I don't see the role of the federal government in banning lynching.
So, ya think a lotta white folk wuz goin and gettin theyseff lynched? I used to ask myself if MICHAELSAVAGEFORPREZNINT was stupid, or just obtuse. I don't wonder anymore.
Jscott, I was just giving a hypothetical example. I never said that whites got lynched. However, murder is a state issue, not a federal one. Lynching should not be a federal offense.
Weinerboy
Did you not even READ my reply to your first fatuous assertion that lynchings were not an appropriate or constitutional subject for Federal intervention?
Or did you simply not understand it?
Okay... let's try this again. The Constitution guarantees that ALL American citizens... & specifically former slaves & their progeny... have a RIGHT to vote... have a RIGHT to conduct their affairs in an environment free of oppression & intimidation over the fact of their race or religion... & a RIGHT to what the Declaration of Independence calls "life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.
When, as part of a MASSIVE social & political conspiracy operated by state & local government, they are DENIED their Constitutionally mandated rights... & are, in fact, openly humiliated, abused, tortured, jailed, & murdered... it is the RESPONSABILITY & the OBLIGATION of the Federal Government to INTERVENE & secure them in their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS!
Do you get it now? Sates & local municipalities do not have the legal or moral authority to deny minorities their CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS! When these entities either attempt to directly strip people of their rights, or react with a studied indifference when private conspirators use violence against them, then the Federal Government stands as THE ONLY ENTITY THAT CAN PROTECT THEM! History is NOT ambiguous on this point. Southern whites DID act... using the institutional support of local & state government... to harm Southern blacks IN ORDER TO PERPETUATE THEM IN A STATE OF ENFORCED SERVITUDE!
So, what part of this argument are you not comprehending? Think about it before you reply. Try & come up with a reasonable counterargument, rather than simply reasserting the same mindless regurgitation of your prior position. Actually consider & respond to the other side or end up being eternally dismissed as simply an annoyingly chatty dunce.
Mescal, you made a bunch of generalizations but no specifics. I don't see any Constitutional clause that gives the federal government the power to ban lynching. If a state chooses to not punish a lynchmob, that's actually its right, although it would be wrong for a state to do so. Contrary to what most people think, nobody has a Constitutional right to not be murdered. It's simply state law that bans murder. If all the states wanted to, they could legalize what we call "murder."
If the state government somehow takes part in the lynch mob, then the federal government can play a role there. No state shall deprive someone of life without due process.
I can see the federal government mandating that lynching laws must be applied fairly and equally to the races, but I don't see where the federal government has the power to ban lynching.
I appreciate that, J.
Hey J, If you get this in time...
Thanks for the back up.
"He said in 1993 that it was the worst mistake of his life. He said it was an albatross he would wear for the rest of his life, and that his obituary would point out his affiliation. Fortunately, people can change, and many people believe that he has and respect him for the courage to do so."
It seems to me he was referring to a political mistake, not a moral one. And, again. Byrd used the "N" word on national television fewer than five years ago. (BTW, only two African-Americans have been nominated to the Supreme Court. Byrd voted AGAINST both of them. The year 1991 was not decades ago.)
"Third, I don’t know what Harry Truman THOUGHT about doing, but I know what he DID."
I understand Hitler treated animals with kindness.
I misspoke. Truman was actually inducted into the KKK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable_alleged_Ku_Klux_Klan_members_in_national_politics#Harry_Truman
"I saved the biggest falsehood for last. This one has been debunked before, but like your favorite old smut rag, it’s fun to drag out again and again. Like most good lies, this one has an element, more like an illusion, of truth."
Wrong. I said a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act.
According to the Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964, 69 percent of Senate Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). 82 is larger than 69.
In the House, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the act. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for the act. 80 is larger than 61. My assertion stands as a fact, not a falsehood as you claim.
And, BTW, the effort to pass the act in the Senate was indeed led by Senator Everett Dirksen, my fellow Republican and Frisian from Illinois.
"From the beginning, before the bill was even introduced in the House, Kennedy, and then Johnson, realized the success or failure of the bill rested upon the shoulders of one man, Everett McKinley Dirksen. Ironically, two Democratic presidents relied upon a Republican senator because they could not count on the support of Southern Democratic senators, most of whom supported segregation. Dirksen could deliver enough Republican votes to invoke cloture, thus limiting debate and vastly improving the chances of the bill's passage. In fact, if a senator was willing to vote for cloture he would also, in all probability, vote for the civil rights bill."
http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/1996/iht319648.html
You're STILL wrong. It's a distortion of the facts and you KNOW it. If you said, the percentage of the total number of Republicans that voted for it is higher than the percentage of the total Democrats that voted for it, then I would have no argument. But when you say a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it, then you are deliberately implying that more Republicans than Democrats voted for it and THAT is factually incorrect. In the Senate, (where you are getting that misleading 80%-61% comparison) the Dem Yays outnumbered the Rep Yays by 46-27. All but one southern Dem and all but one southern Rep voted against it.
It's kind of like saying 50 is 50% of 100, then saying that 100 is four times bigger than 50 because it is 200% of 50.
If you keep repeating this distortion, then you ar intellectually dishonest.
"You're STILL wrong. It's a distortion of the facts and you KNOW it. If you said, the percentage of the total number of Republicans that voted for it is higher than the percentage of the total Democrats that voted for it, then I would have no argument. But when you say a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for it, then you are deliberately implying that more Republicans than Democrats voted for it and THAT is factually incorrect."
You can't be that ignorant, can you? I said a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act. That's a fact. I am not wrong on that. If you inferred something else from my statement, that's your problem. I can't help it if you lack a basic understanding of mathematics. I do wish more Republicans had been in the House and Senate at the time. If there had, civil rights legislation would have passed a decade earlier.
"In the Senate, (where you are getting that misleading 80%-61% comparison) the Dem Yays outnumbered the Rep Yays by 46-27. All but one southern Dem and all but one southern Rep voted against it. "
There's nothing misleading there. Those figures are from the Congressional Quarterly after the vote.
"It's kind of like saying 50 is 50% of 100, then saying that 100 is four times bigger than 50 because it is 200% of 50."
You're lost, aren't you?
"If you keep repeating this distortion, then you ar intellectually dishonest."
No distrortion on my part. All I see is a great deal of spinning on your part to try to explain away the facts that a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both the House and Senate voted for the 1964 Civil Rights act and that a Republican, Everett Dirksen, led the effort to get the act passed in the Senate because LBJ could not rely on his own party.
Kevin, that was beautiful. Why would racist Democrats want to switch to a party less racist than the Democrats?
Thurmond actually joined the GOP because he agreed with the party's political ideology. It wasn't about racism.
Thanks for reminding me about Fritz too.
Not about racism?
Are you talking about a DIFFERENT Strom Thrumond from the one who ran for president as a Dixiecrat in 48. You know, the one who's slogan was "Segregation Forever"?
The same one who switched to the GOP? That guy?
Really! You mean, the guy who attacked Brown v. Board Of Education as unconstitutional, and filibustered the Civil Rights Act?
Nah, no racism involved there.
Surely you don't mean the very same Strom, who upon the passage of the Civil Rights Act said, "This is a tragic day for America, when negro agitators, spurred on by communist enticements to promote racial strife, can cause the United States Senate to be steamrolled into passing the worst, most unreasonable and unconstitutional legislation that has ever been considered by the Congress". Naw, it couldn't be HIM, because THAT guy sounds pretty RACIST, don't he?
Thurgood Marshall argued the case in Brown v. Board of Education.
Democrat Robert Byrd held up Marshall's confirmation to the US Court of Appeals in 1961. Byrd also voted against Marshall when LBJ nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1967.
Marshall was sworn in by Hugo Black, a former KKK member nominated by Democrat FDR.
Thurgood Marshall wasn't qualified to be on the Supreme Court. Not because he was black but because he wasn't that smart. Historians have documented the fact that he wasn't an intellectual jurist.
Why would segregationist Strom Thurmond switch to a party that didn't support segregation unless he switched for other reasons?
J, that was my point. Thurmond was a racist, but the GOP wasn't. He must have switched for other reasons.
Now, please go back and read the reply to KEVIN1007 just above your last post. It was posted AFTER yours, in response to Kevin, but it appears you might benefit from it as well.
The only benefit he would gain from your post and learning that you offer bogus arguments. Your claim that I lied when I said a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act was completely blown out of the water. You were also incorrect when you said that Republicans did not lead the charge to pass that act. I supply a link that showed JFK and then LBJ relied on Republican Everett Dirksen to get the act through the Senate because those presidents realized the OPPOSITION TO THE ACT from their own party.
People also mistakenly believe that southerners vote GOP for racist reasons. The GOP does not support institutionalized racism. Liberals need to accept that southerners have evolved quite a bit on the issue of race over the years. I bet that most libs think that the south would still have slavery today if it weren't for the Civil War. Anyway, the south predominantly votes GOP because southerners support the Christian conservative values of the Republican Party. Personally, I think that the GOP has abandoned conservatism, but that's just my opinion (even though it's right).
The numbers on the '68 and '72 elections in my super long post PROVE that the southern racistn ALL went to the GOP Read it again.
Robert Byrd, Al Gore, Sr., Fritz Hollings, Howell Heflin, and other segregationists remained with the Democrat Party, so your assertion that southern racists all went to the GOP is demonstrably false.
You're talking about the voters though, not the politicians. If those voters supported Nixon because they thought that he'd repeal the Civil Rights Act and bring back segregation or even slavery, then they were wrong. However, the South continues to vote mostly GOP today. There must be another reason. It's really that simple. There are other issues.
My last comment was directed to Jscott.
Thurmond switched parties in 1964 in order to support Goldwater. Anyone who has read Goldwater's "The Conscience of a Conservative" knows that his platform went beyond civil rights. He also wrote about states' rights, farmers, labor, taxes and spending, education, and the welfare state.
You and I are at a distinct disadvantage on the MMFA forum. We are constrained by the facts when we debate. The liberals here are free to make any assertion they care to without regard to the facts.
Kevin, that was an excellent point.
I just demostrated, by analysis of the '68 and '72 elections, that the southern racists ALL voted GOP when there were no more southern racist candidates to vote for. If the GOP was not racist before, it surely was after.
Now things may have changed some, I certainly hope so. They have for the Democrats. But the whole reason for this argument is that Kevin1007 tried to paint the DemocrartIC party as KKK sympathizers. It's public record that SOUTHERN Democrats were racist, as were SOUTHERN Republicans, but it is also a fact that AFTER the Civil Rights Act, Southern racists were OVERWHELMINGLY Republican. My analysis of the '68 and '72 elections PROVE it.
Jscott, you forgot George Wallace, who ran in 1968. BTW, he never became a Republican.
Many racist voters may have switched to the GOP, but they had to have been disappointed. Liberals also need to accept that most southerners have evolved on the issue of race over the years. The south mostly votes GOP today, but I doubt that it's because of racism. The GOP doesn't support any institutionalized racist policy.
The GOP had zero tolerance for the KKK racist anti-Semitic bigot Duke.
Duke chose the wrong party. If he had run as a Democrat, he, like Byrd, might have risen to the level of Senate Majority Leader.
And don't you think the left's attacks on Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice involve a bit of racist? I think so. In fact, I've started using the phrase, "Like white liberals on Condi Rice." (Note to liberals: The original phrase is "Like white on rice.")
"And don't you think the left's attacks on Alberto Gonzales and Condi Rice involve a bit of racist? I think so."
And you don't have one shred of evidence to back that up? You just think so because it makes you feel better to think so?
Sure, I have evidence. Here's just one example: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305
That's not evidence. That's a complete nonsequitur. First of all, it has nothing to do with Gonzales or Rice. Secondly, even if it did pertain to one of them it still wouldn't prove your point. So a Democrat noted that one of Estrada's strong selling points was that he's a Latino? Once again, the Right thinks that the mere mention of race is evidence of racism. Forget the fact that the man's race was being mentioned as a positive. Weak.
A great many of the open borders and amnesty for types keep using some of the same old tired rhetoric regarding whether or not we can deport 12 to 20 million people.
WELL we can give it the old college try.
AS WELL, we can make life here so uncomfortable as to make some self deport and thus discourage at least some from coming here. Target employers HARD who use illegals.
We can make sure they get NO social services beyond emergency medical care.
We can make sure they get prosecuted HARD for stealing identies and Social Security numbers.
Do any of you have ANY idea of what those stolen SS numbers have done to tens of thousands of Americans? Those Americans spend years trying to straighten up the taxes, and credit because of these lying thieves.
Spare me any BS about they just be hard working people who have no idea of the damage they are doing to American citizens, legal immigrants and our economy overall.
YES big business uses them as well as small business.
This goes on ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. Replacing Americans and legal workers with cheap illegal labor.
Illegals are BAD for America. I could come up with a very simply plan for farms and ranches that genuinely need to bring in help.
But for now, illegals are bad. I am as liberal as they come but this is not a liberal/conservative issue. This is a matter of stopping the colonization of America by people who don't care one bit out our laws, and traditions. They want their cultures, their beliefs, their way of living and they want us to pay for it. Hell they DEMAND we pay for it. (oh and spare me the BS about what happend 1,2, 3 4 hundred years ago. That was THEN this is now) We just can't afford illegals.
Besides this amnesty will only encourage MILLIONS more to head for our border knowing full well the congress will bow to the will of the corporations who want the cheap labor and the churches who want more poverty stricken people with little education to support their corrupt ways, and others because they are kow towing to get the vote so they can keep their nice cushy little jobs.
We can make sure that they don't get emergency care either. While that may sound inhumane to some, the fact is that those illegals are the problem of their home countries, not America. The taxpayers shouldn't have to foot the bill for these people.
And welcome to the melt down of the Republican party. There's some thought that enough poison pills will kill the bill. The debate will rage on.
Treating imigrants as somehow subhuman, evil creatures adds nothing positive to the argument. It just shows your fear.
They're not subhuman, but I shouldn't have to pay for them. If they stayed in Mexico, i wouldn't have to pay for them. Why, then, should they be rewarded with my tax dollars for breaking the law? They shouldn't be treated better for breaking the law.
Hopefully blue dog Democrats and real Republicans (not RINO's) in the House will kill this bill. Shame on Bush, Kennedy, McCain, and the other no good un-American, hateful VERMIN for trying to destroy America with this bill. McCain's campaign is FINISHED.
I should have a comma after "no good."
No, you should have used a "period" after the first word you typed.
Jscott, why is that? What is your disagreement?
The Weinerboy English Teacher extraordinaire made a mistake... awwww.... MAYBE NEXT TIME YOU'LL THINK TWICE ABOUT "CORRECTING" EVERYONES SPELLING AND GRAMMAR. EVERYONE HERE MAKES MISTAKES IN POSTING COMMENTS.
And just so you know... Jscott was being SARCASTIC. Get a clue bro.
Illegal aliens are not immigrants.
Immigrants are those who enter legally, as in allowed to immigrate in.
Illegal aliens are criminals, as in illegal and they should not be here.
Residency and citizenship should be awarded to those who respect the United States, not given to criminals who come in disrespecting U.S. law.
It is about fairness and doing what is right by citizens and legal immigrants who waited and those who still wait.
One of the issues here, as Yahavhis6653 says, is that by allowing any kind of amnesty for "already here" workers treads on just about every legal immigrant we've ever had and currently have. My biggest complaint in this case is that we are unfairly treating people who are following the rules, who want to be a part of America in the way we've set ourselves up, they're jumping the line and getting their families in due to geographical accident. That's not right.
As far as the "La Raza" thing goes; I feel as uncomfortable with people shouting "Arriba La Raza" as I do with people shouting "White Power." It may be more benign, but I can't read thoughts. All I can do is read the zealous expression on the faces of the people I see shouting it, seeing the way people respond eagerly without regard for integration. It's my feeling that movements that enforce differences are not healthy for a country like the US. It IS possible to integrate into a society while retaining your culture (privately) and/or integrating it into the overall society without shouting out and pointing to the fact that you are different and you are NOT part of the overall whole.
As far as the Mexican flags during the demonstrations; I tend to disagree with that. If you are protesting an American law as an American, you shouldn't be flashing the flag of your homeland. If you are talking about the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave, you shouldn't be flying someone else's flag; you're just inviting criticism and you are, at best, mixing your signals. At worst, you're displaying that you're a proud member of another country and culture who wants special treatment just because you're here in the US.
Finally, I feel that being "born" an American just by virtue of geography is an outdated concept, from a time when our country was young and looking for residents. No, I have no proof on this, just my feeling. I think if you and your spouse are in this country illegally, and you birth a child here, that child should not be automatically considered an American citizen.
Honestly, issues aside, this country could do with a lot less "Pride" (often used as an excuse and/or a crutch) and a lot more unity, and part of the problem is by targetting a specific race or creed rather than individuals concerned.
Here are my reasons against illegal immigration:
Here are the ways to stop it: