posted
Rakeesh I believe as you do that it is mostly a mixture of 3 and 4. However, I think there is still enough of option #2 around to cause worry in some places. Often the people who really believe #1 and #2 argue for #3 that the problem is already fixed, which causes more of #4.
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's not to say the Republicans haven't made some flashy moves -- the nomination of that suit Estrada to the courts was brilliant, demonizing the Democrats for shooting down a horrible candidate by making it look like they're shooting down a Latino. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's one difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
When a Republican nominates a minority for something, that person is an Uncle Tom. (Colin Powell).
When a Democrat nominates a minority for something, they're "doing right by that minority".
Yeah, you don't hate Dubya Eddie, like I don't hate root canals:)
Wow. Jeff, I know you're not this shocking an idiot -- we've been friends too long for me to be wrong about your intelligence. So where the hell did this come from?
Estrada is a suit. When he got up in front of the Senate, he essentially refused to give them any real answer to his positions or policies -- he was meant to be cut. Nominating Estrada didn't do Latinos any good, no more than nominating Clarence Thomas did any good for black people. No more than nominating O'Connor did any good for white people.
Democrats, though, as I've said, have done right by the race, instead of doing the black-person-on-stage-at-every-GOP-convention lip job principle Bush applied with Estrada. I provided examples -- did you miss them?
quote:Actually, Sopwith, the Democrats have been doing right by Hispanics for some time. It's the Democrats who fight for bilingual education, and against the installment of English as a national language. The Democrats are more willing to allow looser borders and it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens. Right now in California, the Dems are even pushing for a law to allow illegal immigrants to get driver's licenses (in hopes of them subsequently buying insurance and avoiding that many more hit-and-run accidents).
Don't be such an antagonistic jackass. You've been in that mode far too long, and if it weren't for your damnable likability I doubt we'd still be friends. Cut it out.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, Ed, I like you fine. I'd hang out with you, if geography permitted, and would be glad of the opportunity.
That said, cut the victim act, wouldja? I'm not about to play nice when you don't just because you feel insulted.
quote:Estrada is a suit. When he got up in front of the Senate, he essentially refused to give them any real answer to his positions or policies -- he was meant to be cut. Nominating Estrada didn't do Latinos any good, no more than nominating Clarence Thomas did any good for black people. No more than nominating O'Connor did any good for white people.
This is exactly my point. Clarence Thomas's political opinions didn't fit in with what you've already decided is "good for black people", therefore he's not doing blacks any good, or he's an Uncle Tom at worst (to be fair, you have not said this yourself).
This is what I'm talking about. You've shown you don't really care what skin-color a nominee is, only if their policies support your policies. Therefore my observation is right. A Democrat nominates a minority, they're doing right by minorities. A Republican nominates a minority, the nominee is either irrelevant or an Uncle Tom.
Your examples were pretty anectdotal, incidentally. Nonetheless, I admit that when it comes to expanding freedom to minorities, Democrats are the better party-sometimes, however, at the expense of the freedoms and rights of the majority, and often at the expense of endorsing a mentality of victimhood amongst minorities (hello Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton).
Why is looser borders a good thing, exactly? The borders we already have are quite loose. Why is permitting illegal immigrants driver's licenses a good thing, exactly? You say that they'll be more likely to buy auto insurance that way, but you and I can safely agree that most illegal immigrants are so poor as to make auto insurance an impossibility.
I have nothing whatsoever against illegal immigrants. In fact, I welcome them-for both idealistic and selfish reasons. Idealistically, I know it's a part of the American Dream (one wonders whether or not you'll scoff at it) that most illegal immigrants are, simply put, grateful to have. I'm not saying illegal immigrants owe citizens anything-far from it. The selfish aspect of it is the jobs they take, jobs that simply put American citizens simply don't want. That part more than pays back the opportunity America as a whole gives them via the American Dream.
I stand by my opinion that you hate George W. Bush. You've said, on more than one occasion, that he's stealing from the poor, dislikes minorities, is a warmonger who doesn't care which GI his decisions kills, stole the Presidential Election of 2004, and that you're deeply afraid of him. You've also said he's sometimes utterly stupid, a puppet of people like Cheney, or a Machiavellian mastermind. Oh, and you routinely condescend to and insult people who support him.
So no, Ed, after much careful consideration, I've decided not to "stop being an antagonistic jackass"-although that was a stirring attempt to get me to change my ways .
Oh, and concerning Dubya's illegal immigration policies, he'd probably say it's the equivalent of an Estrada, or at best doing a half-assed right thing just to pander to minorities.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lalo said: it's the Democrats (if I remember correctly) who allowed the children of illegal immigrants, provided they were born in the US, to become citizens. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, that was the 14th Amendment: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." If anyone gets credit that would be Republicans, but clearly not the current batch.
Isn't my face red. I've been under an understanding that allowing the children of illegals -- not just immigrants -- is a fairly new practice, though. Am I incorrect?
quote:Lalo, what about Bush's current plan to give illegal aliens/undocumented workers legal status?
I remember when this was first an issue, before September 11. One of the reasons Vicente Fox was elected was because of his promise to change the current situation with immigration into America, and Bush was enthusiastic about helping him.
Some have labeled the move as an attempt to go after Hispanic votes. I don't deny that it is; every move is political, but I do beleive reform is needed and this move is not out of character with Bush's actions as governor of Texas.
As far as relations with Fox go, Bush essentially destroyed Mexican good will by threatening to "discipline" Mexico if Vicente Fox didn't support Bush for the Iraq invasion.
If you're referring to the plan to give illegals a three-year work permit, I'm actually fairly excited about it. It's about time. Though I can see some fairly major problems with it -- if these workers are raised to minimum wage, employers are going to go after undocumented immigrants who won't need minimum wage. Where does that leave these now-documented immigrants? Few have the education or linguistic capabilities to take on any other jobs but the work they're already doing -- and employers for field work and painting and such will, as I said, target undocumented immigrants.
I'd couple it with some sort of English training and definitely some kind of permit to attend a community college, their tuition depending on their taxes. But I'm glad Bush has done this much -- I think it's the first issue he's acted on that I've agreed with. If Bush weren't such a plutocratic totalitarian, I think I might be more swayed toward voting GOP. Do you know if any Democrats have taken up a similar stance on immigration? I doubt it, myself -- they're too often trying to woo the other side's xenophobes and bigots over to their platform -- but I'd love to see them take up this kind of stance. If they'd grow a backbone and quit trying to sap away from the conservative bloc, I could see them doing this.
Hmm. Here's what Dean has to say on the matter.
quote:Respecting Immigrants' Vital Role In Building The American Community
America is an immigrant nation. As President, I will recognize and respect the vital role immigrants have played in building the American community.
Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican, supportive of immigrants and their desires to achieve the American Dream. Candidate Bush promised to revamp the naturalization process so that immigrants who met the requirements could obtain their citizenship in six months or less. In 2001, President Bush said he would work with President Fox of Mexico to develop a new immigration policy that recognized the economic contribution of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, and that would respect the human rights of these migrants.
Unfortunately, President Bush has not kept these promises.
While he made these promises and invited mariachis to play at the White House, his Attorney General, John Ashcroft, was deputizing local police authorities as junior INS agents to track down undocumented immigrants. Instead of exercising leadership to achieve comprehensive immigration reform, President Bush has turned his back on Mexico and other Latin American countries. He has ignored the dreams of millions of immigrants to become a legitimate part of our society, and not simply its unseen workforce. Instead of revamping and streamlining the immigration agency and its processes, the President has allowed the agency to be swallowed up into the Department of Homeland Security, where immigrants are routinely treated as terrorists until proven otherwise.
We need a White House that will lead Congress to enact real immigration reform. As President, I will work tirelessly to achieve that goal.
I will work to ensure that people who work hard, pay taxes, and otherwise obey the rules can become full participants in our society, including becoming citizens.
I will work to regularize the inevitable future migration of labor in a way that makes economic and humanitarian sense. Deaths in the desert do neither.
I will propose reforms that ensure we can meet our economy’s need for workers at all skill levels, without pitting foreign workers against U.S. workers and while respecting workers' rights including the right to organize.
I will work to forge stronger partnerships with countries from which immigrants migrate -- especially Mexico -- so that in the long run, fewer people will be driven by desperation to break laws and risk their lives for basic opportunities that every human being deserves.
I will work to ensure that immigrants who are detained by the Department of Homeland Security are afforded their basic civil rights and that our concern for national security does not become another excuse for racial profiling.
I will build on our country’s long history of welcoming immigrants in ways that reflect our need for security but do not sacrifice the basic ideals upon which this nation was founded.
While it sounds pretty, I'm unhappy that there's no real plan there. Give me some hard proposals, Dean.
quote:If Bush weren't such a plutocratic totalitarian, I think I might be more swayed toward voting GOP. Do you know if any Democrats have taken up a similar stance on immigration? I doubt it, myself -- they're too often trying to woo the other side's xenophobes and bigots over to their platform -- but I'd love to see them take up this kind of stance.
And I'm an antagonistic jackass. Or maybe I am. Who else on the `Rack would categorize Dubya as any sort of totalitarian?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a letter I just fired off to Dean's campaign:
quote:I'm a fairly liberal Mexican-American, and Bush's plutocratic totalitarianism frightens me -- it was difficult enough for the country to recover from the the first McCarthy, and I don't intend to allow a second.
But Bush has recently put out a proposal regarding illegal immigration that sways even me. I've read your page on illegal immigration, and while it sounds pretty, give me some hard proposals. Give me a plan. At least match Bush's -- three-year permits for illegals are damn overdue. But while Bush's plan has some serious economic weaknesses (such as how it will only serve to drive employers toward undocumented illegals and leave the newly documented immigrants in the cold), it's still a very appealing plan to Hispanics. Don't forget, these are our families and friends who are screwed over by this slave labor system. You need to come up with a proposal that holds a similar attraction to Hispanics, but makes economic sense -- it's the only way a white man from Vermont's going to win the Latino vote away from a Texan, no matter how incompetent or tyrannical that Texan is. I don't mean to disparage my ethnicity, but it's a fact -- Latino concerns lie in the Southwest, and Bush's origins give him a huge leap in credibility, however undeserved.
Slave labor has shifted from black niggers in the South to Mexican wetbacks in the Southwest. Reform the system. End slave labor. The first and best way to do that is to help make Mexico and other Latin American countries better places to live -- a promise Bush made, but never lived up to. Come up with an industrial base you're going to help raise in Mexico, like oil, and you'll have come a long way toward stemming illegal immigration. You'll not only court the Latino vote by proposing such a deal, but white xenophobes and bigots will also be swayed by the idea of keeping us out of "their" country -- while I doubt you'll bring about the white bigot vote (which reflects well on Dean), you'll at least loosen the Bush bedrock.
And if I haven't emphasized it enough yet, come up with a way to help current illegal immigrants. Work permits are good, but ultimately futile if there's still a flow of illegal immigration to the country -- you need to come up with a permit plan compounded with the raising of a Mexican industry to humanitarianly alleviate the problem.
I intend to vote for Dean, but you need to give all Hispanics a reason to. This is key. You stand to lose the Southwest if you don't act on this issue, and act on it forcefully. Don't give me rhetoric, give me proposals. Latinos and Catholics are quickly becoming swing votes in this country, and by courting Latinos you would court both. Do right by us.
I'm portraying myself as more Mexican than I am -- every Mexican-American aspect of my family that's in the US is here legally, and while I'm acquaintances with many illegals, I can't call myself a friend or confidant. I have no finger on the Latino pulse. But I'm fairly sure I'm accurately diagnosing the problem and the solution for Dean, regardless of how gringo my white ass is. Hope he pays attention.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lalo, from what I remember (though I'm not in CA now) It was CA, under Pete Wilson, when the idea was circulated where that wanted to revoke citizenship to the babies of [illegal] Mexican immigrants, because since the babies were US citizens and CA citizens they then had a right to the state-subsidized welfare and health care systems,(and were putting a strain on the $$ budgeted) even if their parents were here illegally. The parents would then use the kid to leverage their own citizenship. However I don't think they could actually revoke the citizenship, because it would require a US constitutional ammendment not a state ammendment.
Maybe they were talking about this in other border states like AZ too, but as far as I know the way the law reads now, if a mother makes it across the border, and the baby is born in the US border patrol shack it is still on US soil and therefore a citizen.
quote: Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican
Lol. I had not realized that the Dean people referred to Bush as 'candidate' Bush. I approve. Good spin. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sure it is. It is if you on one hand endorse judicial activism on social issues, but criticize judicial overstepping (as it is viewed concerning Dubya and the election by many Democrats) when it goes against your grain.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Candidate Bush promised that he would be a different kind of Republican, supportive of immigrants and their desires to achieve the American Dream. Candidate Bush promised to revamp the naturalization process so that immigrants who met the requirements could obtain their citizenship in six months or less. In 2001, President Bush said he would work with President Fox of Mexico to develop a new immigration policy that recognized the economic contribution of immigrants, particularly those from Mexico, and that would respect the human rights of these migrants.
Unfortunately, President Bush has not kept these promises.
Dean's referring to pre- and post-election Bush as candidate and President Bush, respectively.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Lalo said: Isn't my face red. I've been under an understanding that allowing the children of illegals -- not just immigrants -- is a fairly new practice, though. Am I incorrect?
Yes - any person born in the U.S. is a citizen; this has been true since the passage of the 14th amendment. There have been some cases of illegal parents being deported and taking thier children, and the child coming back when s/he turns 18.
It's the reverse side of this that has caused problems - a child adopted from somewhere in Asia when he was a baby was convicted of some juvenile crime and deported when he was 17, even though he only spoke English.
posted
Okay, it looks like the Howard Dean/racism issue is not going away. Al Sharpton decided to steal some of Dean's thunder by accusing him of not appointing any minorities to his cabinet as governor of Vermont.
In my opinion, this pretty much sums up the liberal position on race. Al Sharpton knows just as well as anybody else that blacks make up less than 1% of the population of Vermont. The only reason he was able to make an issue out of this, is because Dean let him. Dean should have told Sharpton that he got the best people for the jobs, period. Instead he is in defense mode and creating cover for himself. He won't just come out and say that there were no blacks in the state of vermont that were qualified to serve in his cabinet.
The whole idea that every gathering of people in the united states must represent minorites at or above their equivalent population level is obsurd. Why are people MORE concerned with race than they are with qualifications? Is that not what the whole issue is really about? I say yes.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yes, the liberal position on race. Which clearly explains why Braun, another African-American liberal who happens to be running for President, backed Dean up on that.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Which clearly explains why Braun, another African-American liberal who happens to be running for President, backed Dean up on that.
The point of this is that all of those candidates have roughly the same position on race. They all spout the ideals that race is more important than qualifications. It was Sharpton who pointed out, unintentionally, that it is impossible to get both a racially diverse cabinet and a qualified cabinet while in vermont. Thus exposing all of their positions as race baiting lip-service.
Braun has her own motives for the tactics she used, however she is right along side of sharpton and dean and all the others when it comes to preferring race to qualifications.
posted
Dean preferred race to qualification? How strange, as he had an all white cabinet (in a by far mostly white state, as you noted). The evidence seems to rather suggest he didn't let lip service to diversity influence his decisions there.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: he didn't let lip service to diversity influence his decisions there.
Of course not. Yet he travels around the country telling people that we need to educate white folks about racism, claiming that there's a subconcious racism everywhere. He spouts the position that race is of over-arching importance. Yet it takes Al Sharpton to point out(again, unintentionaly) what kind of stupidity is behind a position like that.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I was using a word diverse in the same grammatically correct manner it has been used for several hundred years.
Also, I doubt there were no blacks in Vermont qualified to serve on Dean's cabinet, its rather more likely there were none who applied who were qualified. And there were certainly many, many more whites who applied.
Dean's position on race is very different from Sharpton's position is very different from Gephardt's position. To suggest they are all the same position doesn't make much sense at all.
Furthermore, its not all about qualifications, regardless of whether or not you think thats stupid. For instance, if I can't work well with someone, even if they test well, hiring them to work with me would be a mistake. Of course then the logical choice would be to create an environment where people dissimilar in the way we are could work better together. Of course then the logical course of action would be to take actions which educated the one of us with the problem working with the other about the other.
Of course, I'm sure you can see the analogies with racism, particularly in a society where equally qualified black people earn less money.
quote: Dean's position on race is very different from Sharpton's position is very different from Gephardt's position.
How are they different? They all use the same code words, they all use the same race-baiting tactics.
Perhaps you can contrast their beliefs for me.
quote: Furthermore, its not all about qualifications, regardless of whether or not you think thats stupid.
You're right. Even though part of being qualified is being able to do the job asked of you. That is not what the democrat candidates are pushing. They want race to be a factor when hiring people.
What I am saying here is that these democrats are the ones pushing racism as a way of life.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rob, Republicans use the exact same race baiting tactics. Don't play stupid. For instance, the way the Estrada block was spun, you would think that the Democrats were doing it because they hated hispanics, or they didn't like hispanics who didn't know their place. These things were said by many different conservative commentators, despite the fact that they have zero basis in truth.
Republicans also use race baiting tactics in how they promote their own social agenda. School choice is often touted as the best way to help minorities out of the ghetto, and Democrats only oppose it because they want to keep blacks in their place, etc.
This is not a liberal issue. It's a political bullshit issue.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: Rob, Republicans use the exact same race baiting tactics. Don't play stupid
Of course, I will point out to you that I have not claimed that republicans don't abuse the race issue. I myself am not a republican, and have no interest in defending them as a group.
However, in the interest of sanity, I will also point out that the democrat cadidates talk about race in almost every forum in which they speak. The democrat party has made race baiting an official plank of their platform. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Carol Braun are not republicans. These three comprise an axis-of-racism that is firmly in the democrat corner.
Posts: 859 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
