2016 Election Day Night

[seemslikeadream]

any and all

[Freitag]

Alright I'm going to put you on ignore, you're a serious waste of mental energy for me.

[seemslikeadream]

fine by me but I surely won't be putting you on ignore

any time you use a racial slur I will call you on it

Repetition of phrases like "illegal immigrant" is like a poison that infects society

Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens"

The term “illegal alien” implies that a person’s existence is criminal.

The term "illegal immigrant" was first used in 1939 as a slur by the British toward Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entering Palestine without authorization.

[Sounder]

So how does Israel contribute to this notion that 'no human being is illegal'?

People can say all the pretty and righteous words they want, but at the end of the day, if you support mass immigration, then you also support the neo-liberal global corporatist no-borders and deeply racist bureaucrats that can't think for themselves, let alone everyone else.

The levels of racism are orders of magnitude greater among those that destroy whole cultures and countries than is the racism of 'anti-immigration' types.

As more countries get destroyed and the enablers bask in righteousness.

[seemslikeadream]

Israel is not posting on this board Freitag is and he is the one using a racial slur on this board

that's what this is about a racial slur being used by a member of this board ...nothing more ...nothing less

what other racial slurs are going to be considered normal discourse here?


if you want to talk Zionism take it here


Zionism’s Lost Shine
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=36886

[km artlu]

> slad

You have long been veering into a state of mind that I cannot comprehend. (also the screaming big red caps are telling)

An Icelander overstaying their visa and taking up residence would be by definition an "illegal immigrant". Because that term applies to any imaginable race - therefor to any human - it can't be a "racial slur".

Those are facts. Your feelings don't change facts.

[seemslikeadream]

this is not my feelings ...these are the facts....a human being can not be illegal

Elie Wiesel Nobel Peace Prize winner and Holocaust survivor

Repetition of phrases like "illegal immigrant" is like a poison that infects society

Supreme Court decision in the landmark Arizona immigration case was groundbreaking for what it omitted: the words "illegal immigrants" and "illegal aliens"

The term “illegal alien” implies that a person’s existence is criminal.

The term "illegal immigrant" was first used in 1939 as a slur by the British toward Jews who were fleeing the Nazis and entering Palestine without authorization.

[km artlu]

He's wrong. Is that allowed?

The person isn't illegal. The person's location is illegal.

[Sounder]

Category confusion is a ploy to call someone a racist in this case.

It is embarrassing.

[seemslikeadream]

He's wrong. Is that allowed?

The person isn't illegal. The person's location is illegal.

a location can be illegal ...a human being can not

[seemslikeadream]

Category confusion is a ploy to call someone a racist in this case.

It is embarrassing.

Trump is a racist

there is no confusion

[DrEvil]

Do you understand that it's possible to arrive at the same conclusion from different tracks? Person A wants illegal immigrants deported because they are a flaming racist. Person B wants them deported because they're a drain on public services, undermine our legal immigration system, on principle, whatever. These people want the same thing, but for different reasons. One set of reasons is deplorable, the other isn't. It's like if you voted to re-elect Obama because of the economic recovery, shared social values, etc. etc. But then someone else voted for him because they're on welfare and they know democrats give them more free stuff. Same conclusion, different tracks, one deplorable and one not. Quit assigning deplorable thought processes to people for wanting things that there is a legitimate argument for. Both Left and Right have fringe elements.

You're talking about Latinos

I am not talking about Latinos. I'm talking about illegal immigration of any creed or color.

Why is no one ranting about banning Christians?

Because being a Christian isn't illegal, whereas being an illegal immigrant is.

But most of the illegal immigrants are Christians, a small minority is Muslim, yet the Great Orange One only wants to ban Muslims en masse. That's both hypocritical and racist.

Why again is it not racist to want to ban all Muslims (and yeah, I know Muslim is a religious affiliation, but how many white Muslims are there)?

Because there's been a little problem with Islamic terrorism of late. We have to deal with reality as it is, not as we want it to be. We must be clear-eyed when it comes to national security. If some feelings have to be hurt, that's unfortunate, but the safety of the American people is of paramount importance.

Sorry, but this is pure racist drivel worthy of the best of Trump. You want to treat a group of millions like enemies because a handful of them committed horrible crimes. White people kill more Americans than terrorists do every single year.
You're advocating an authoritarian surveillance state targeting people based on religion and ethnicity (I mean, even worse than you already have).

And by the way, I understand that those are not your sensibilities. But you share the United States with Americans of all different opinions. Many of them just voiced their concern for their security with the election of Donald Trump. Just respect that we can be Americans and have different opinions.

No, those are not my "sensibilities" (what a nice way of saying racist!), because I'm not a racist. I'm also not American.

Something being illegal doesn't automagically make it right.

Doesn't make it wrong, either.

[tapitsbo]

One thing that seems more and more clear is that there isn't such a state as an "absence of racism", that the politics of the world are marked by contested and conflicting racial and ethnic identities no matter where you go

a religion like Islam which is not closely related to race but is still tangentially related to it has its own attitudes towards the "outgroup". I can't say I'm at all an enthusiastic fan of the many loud anti-muslim figures in the west but let's not kid ourselves, the politicization of Islam is coming from many places at once and is not simply being imposed by Trump on Muslims arbitrarily. There is a plausible story behind why he's made his remarks whether you agree with him or not (I think his remarks about banning immigration from certain countries affected by Islamic terrorism was designed to get a reaction, and are not supposed to represent a serious or sophisticated analysis of any kind, but I also believe the diametrically opposed journalists who insist on carte blanche autonomy for Islam in the West, India or elsewhere are also "trolling" for all intents and purposes)

The open borders message is just rhetoric - after Brexit we saw the London independence movement wanting a border around their "territory" just as much of Silicon Valley does after Trump

In a world without nation-state borders you would still see different social, political, and cultural norms varying on a geographical basis. We've seen that countries like the USA and Germany in particular have allowed indiscriminate immigration for a number of reasons but all of this is changing. If we all had free movement and there was no equivalent of "citizenship" and similar connections to territory, there would still be geographical politics around population movement, and we might see an acceleration back into borders, to say nothing of private property and various fortified enclaves like those envisioned by pan-secessionists...

Beyond the tired opposition of "nationalism vs. globalism" there is the fertile trend of political development along an "imperial" basis as with russia, china, turkey, and others, who all claim to be contesting an anglo-american global or international order. It's near inevitable that the west will return to a focus on deciding its own direction and continue to break with attempts to speak for the entire world and uphold "global" standards that aren't wanted elsewhere around the globe... meanwhile planet-wide political movements are likely to have a different character altogether from the remarks of Elie Wiesel or Angela Merkel

P.S. If I'm not mistaken Wiesel was on the board of directors of the anti-immigration Gatestone Institute before his death that scapegoated Muslims and I believe is directly tied to trump via Woolsey and others...

[Freitag]

But most of the illegal immigrants are Christians, a small minority is Muslim, yet the Great Orange One only wants to ban Muslims en masse. That's both hypocritical and racist.

There are two different issues getting confused here. Illegal immigration and (legal) Muslim immigration. Nobody's banning illegal immigration, it's already illegal.

Sorry, but this is pure racist drivel worthy of the best of Trump. You want to treat a group of millions like enemies because a handful of them committed horrible crimes.

Sorry, but no it isn't. ISIS could easily infiltrate the flow of refugees due to our inability to screen them adequately. ISIS has said openly that that is their intention. European intelligence agencies admit that it has already occurred.

On another level, you're acting like the U.S. just owes citizenship to people wanting to come here. News flash - the whole world wants to come here because we're awesome. We get to pick and choose.

And I don't see anything wrong with treating any number of people as potential enemies, because that's what they are. That may make you clutch your pearls, but it's the job of our security services to think that way.

No, those are not my "sensibilities" (what a nice way of saying racist!), because I'm not a racist.

I think we all realize you imagine yourself wearing the white hat here.

I'm also not American.

Noted. But if it were up to you you'd feel entitled to just come over here and make yourself at home, right? Without going through our legal immigration process?

[seemslikeadream]

right at home on the land that was stolen from the Native Americans?...is that the land he is to make himself at home on?