Tying GOP to Bush is Winner for Dems

[BT]

That kind of simplistic shit just won't fly any more.  Fortunately most Americans live in the real world and can see the results of racism all around them with their own eyes.  Equal treatment for all runners in the race, even for the guy who starts with a 20-lb weight strapped to each leg, is bullshit.  Most folks can see through Tea Party racism with their eyes shut.  Lotsa luck widdat.

What 20 pound weight? And what Tea Party racism?

[Michael Tee]

The 20-lb. weights are the living, continuing consequences of past slavery, racism and Jim Crow.  The Tea Party racism is implicit in their opposition to "illegal" immigration and all government programs aimed at redressing the wrongs of American racism.

[BT]

The 20-lb. weights are the living, continuing consequences of past slavery, racism and Jim Crow.

Give me examples. Show me the law that says a black man will not be allowed to finish high school, and go on to college? Show me how a white person from the same economic background does not deal with the same disadvantages.

Being against illegal immigration is no more racist than being against tax fraud, It is the act not the actor that is at issue.

[Kramer]

Who is exciting among the Teapartiers? Rand Paul? Sharon Angle?

It appears to be an assortment of grumpy old farts throwing a tantrum. Strangely, when Juniorbush was president, they  did not seem to complain about taxes.

When you die please donate your brain to science. it would be worth slicing bits of it in tiny slices to examine. could be damage due to contamination from heavy metals or some other substances might have burrowed into it.The effects seem to be worsening over time.

[sirs]

The 20-lb. weights are the living, continuing consequences of past slavery, racism and Jim Crow.

Give me examples. Show me the law that says a black man will not be allowed to finish high school, and go on to college? Show me how a white person from the same economic background does not deal with the same disadvantages.

Don't hold your breath.  Been asking those questions since the asaine allegations began, and Tee apparently is not going to have that debate, despite this being a debate forum.  Have yet to see any such evidence, outside of the occasional Razor rhetoric

Being against illegal immigration is no more racist than being against tax fraud, It is the act not the actor that is at issue.

PRECISELY.  Can't count how many times its been referenced that actions speak louder than words.  One has to ACT racist to be called a racist.  One has to act Chrisitian, to be called a Christian.  One has to act like a terrorist, to be called a terrorist.  One has to act Muslim, to be called a Muslim.  (Could go into the idiot references for some here in the saloon, but I'll refrain for now)

It's the ACTIONS (i.e. EXAMPLES) that validate the claim.  Throwing around the implicit crap references the idiocy claim I was alluding to earlier  Being against illegal immigration is being against ILLEGAL immigration, simple as that.  It has NOTHING to do with one's race.  It's illegal to enter this country, from whatever country you're from, if you do it ILLEGALLY

[sirs]

[Michael Tee]

<<Give me examples. Show me the law that says a black man will not be allowed to finish high school, and go on to college? Show me how a white person from the same economic background does not deal with the same disadvantages.>>

Where you been for the past 45 years?  The major laws against racial discrimination were passed in 1964 and 1965.  But you knew that.  The discrimination of the 21st century is societal, being the result of the preceding century of legal racial discrimination and the years of slavery that preceded it.  The results are in every statistic you want to look at:  percentage of young black males sucked into the criminal system, sentencing discrepancies between whites and blacks in otherwise similar circumstances, dropout rates, graduate degree rates, etc.  There is no measure of social progress that I am aware of that shows blacks performing on an equal basis with whites.  Unless you want to explain that as an inherent racial inferiority, there is no explanation that I know of other than the direct and indirect results of past and present American racism.

<<Being against illegal immigration is no more racist than being against tax fraud, It is the act not the actor that is at issue. >>

That is also bullshit.  Many laws are routinely violated (the prohibition against torture, the obligation to prosecute torturers, tax evasion, commercial piracy of intellectual property, etc. etc.) but you don't see Tea Party protests against any of those forms of lawlessness.  The only protest you see from the Tea Party are against "government spending" (code for opposition to benefits which disproportionately benefit visible minorities) and of course "illegal immigration," obviously a racist-inspired movement aimed at producing a whiter America by the removal of large numbers of Hispanics.

[sirs]

Yep, definative proof of liberal receptions problems

[BT]

Where you been for the past 45 years?  The major laws against racial discrimination were passed in 1964 and 1965.  But you knew that

That would be at a minimum 2.25 generations ago. What is today's excuse?

BTW please cite one racist law still on the books designed to keep the black man down.

The real problem is cultural. Not racism.

<<Being against illegal immigration is no more racist than being against tax fraud, It is the act not the actor that is at issue. >>

That is also bullshit.

I take it then that as a avowed non racist, you are in favor of illegal immigration?

[Plane]

  The only protest you see from the Tea Party are against "government spending" (code for opposition to benefits which disproportionately benefit visible minorities) and of course "illegal immigration," obviously a racist-inspired movement aimed at producing a whiter America by the removal of large numbers of Hispanics.

I have to laugh every time you admit that your accusations require special interpretation of your opposition.

If our words mean only what you wish them to mean why do we bother to speak english?

We could speak any other language that you do not understand just as well.

[sirs]

 

Touche', Plane

[Michael Tee]

<<That [the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts] would be at a minimum 2.25 generations ago. What is today's excuse?>>

The continuing intergenerational effects of past racist policies superimposed on continuing racist oppression that the law is unable to obliterate from the American social fabric, obviously.

<<BTW please cite one racist law still on the books designed to keep the black man down.>>

Racism continues in America as a societal problem, not a legal problem.  If the absence of racist laws were taken as proof of the absence of racism in America, the presence of laws penalizing criminal conduct could be taken as proof of the absence of criminality in America.  Your "challenge" is ridiculous and absurd.  The fact is that the old racist laws in America were proof of, and depended upon, a very high degree of racism in America.  The absence of such laws today indicates some waning of the original racist sentiment, but to go from the conclusion that racism isn't strong enough any more to be preserved in the laws of the land to the conclusion that racism has lost all of its force is ludicrous.

<<The real problem is cultural. Not racism.>>

IMHO, the real problem is racism which has, through generations of slavery and then Jim Crow, shaped the cultural problems that you are presumably referring to.  So that the blacks are doubly victimized today by racism - - first, by the direct results of ongoing racist conduct of the officers of city, state and federal government and secondly by their own negative cultural traits which themselves are the product of racism.

<<I take it then that as a avowed non racist, you are in favor of illegal immigration?>>

No, I am not.  I think every country has a right to control its own borders, by an immigration policy geared to the needs of its people, but that policy should be enacted in a neutral, non-racist way.  The problem with the Tea Party is they want to take over the enforcement of the immigration laws in existence for obviously racist purposes.  There is no other federal legislation that they are anxious to intervene in enforcing.  The signs and comments observed at numerous Tea Party rallies is clear evidence of the racist intent behind the Tea Parties and the efforts of the organizers to "clean up their act" by attempting to cover up the racism is nothing more than whitewashing their own unseemly behaviour to disguise its foulness and offensiveness from non-racist, moderate and/or minority voters.

[BT]

There is no other federal legislation that they are anxious to intervene in enforcing.

Can you give examples of other federal laws that are as obviouslynon enforced as immigration violations?

[Michael Tee]

<<Can you give examples of other federal laws that are as obviously non-enforced as immigration violations?>>

Well, obviously the first that comes to mind is the legal obligation imposed on the Federal government by the US ratification of UNCAT, to prosecute torturers and the blatant refusal of the head of state to do so.  On the absolutely ludicrous grounds that the prosecution of torturers would be "looking backward."  (Can anybody provide an example of the prosecution of any crime that would not be "looking backward?"  How does one prosecute a crime "looking forward" - - charge the guy with offences not yet committed, but that he will commit within some delineated future time, say the next five years?)  That is totally and blatantly contrary to existing legal obligations and yet the MSM has consigned the entire issue to limbo.  

Federal officers are very reluctant to enforce marijuana laws in weed-friendly cities like Oakland, because of the non-cooperation of local law enforcement.

Besides who is to say that the federal immigration laws really are "non-enforced?"  Where are the stats on year-by-year arrests, convictions and/or deportations?  Is the enforcement rate rising or declining?  What proportion of federal outlays are spent on border protection and how does that percentage compare with the same stats for other countries of comparable wealth and development, in absolute terms, and on a per-frontier-mile basis, with coastlines included?  There's no evidence at all that the federal immigration laws are in fact "non-enforced."  It's really hilarious how these Tea Party morons are so worked up about "big government" and "taxes" but at the same time are crying in their beer about the relatively puny status of border patrols (which they are happy to supplement with their own armed presence) and probably never give a thought to the costs of more vigorous enforcement.

[BT]

There's no evidence at all that the federal immigration laws are in fact "non-enforced."

If they were enforced, why would states like Arizona and countless other states that have similar laws in the works, feel the need to expend the manpower and the dollars necessary to do the feds job?