Bush supporters' aftermath thread

I found the following link via a neo-nazi site ('Stormfront').

Since it is "the conservative monthly publication, which promotes a variety of white racial positions" it isn't biased and might be accepted by Lash:

Here you are:


Note: the accusation that Australia has racism; and the only argument being that it "at last check [had] 0% black population". That's an utter non-argument - which is exactly what I pointed out. And it's me pointing that out that in turn had you going on about how I was asserting that there was no racism in Australia. Huh? Non-sequitur anyone?


NOTE - before you make the effort of bringing all kinds of proof that Finland has restrive policies that affect dark-skinned immigrants - my point here is that those countries do not have any specific check ON IMMIGRANTS BEING DARK-SKINNED. The same restrictive immigration and asylum policies pertain just as much to white immigrants - Russians, for example.

(One could argue that that makes the problem one of xenophobia rather than racism; but I would say instead that there is both a problem of xenophobia and racism. Just that there is no question of a skin colour check on immigration, as you allege.)

Just keep this bit of my post in mind before Googling:

You are really stretching. You must have something invested in trying to pin such a statement on me.

Lash wrote:
Australia has at last check 0% black population. How do you like that? I know you're very concerned about racism.
-----------
That obviously doesn't say I equate the population of blacks with racism. That invention was entirely yours, born I guess, of your overzealous to... I still don't know exactly what you're trying to do. If it seemed like I was equating population demographics with racism, the thing to do is ask. I could easily have told you.

However, as I said previously, a 0% black population IS a symptom of a some cause. That cause COULD be racism---intentional refusal to admit blacks. Further reading proved this was the case with Australia.

They seem to have had a black-skin checker immersed in their immigration policy. Or do you refute that?

Did Australia's policy not restrict dark-skinned people...?

Huh? Note that I am quoting your first post on the matter here, and mz response to it. You mentioned Australia having 0% blacks and asked pointedly, "How do you like that? I know you're very concerned about racism." So the allegation here is of racism. If the allegation is racism and the purported evidence was the low number of blacks, wasn't it relevant to note that they do also have 7% Asians - you know, also another RACE, and all that?

Again - I wasn't denying that Australia does have a racism problem; I was just pointing out that your actual argument on it, as of that time, was nonsensical. Which you took - and keep on taking - as evidence that we deny any problem exists. Nonsequitur.


This apparently remains your favourite meme - liberals dodging the question of racism in their countries that you bravely keep confronting them with. You're merely "bring[ing] up something the liberals at the site don't want to hear" - and thats why someone like me will "jump in and attempt to avoid the point".

Only problem with the theory is, its demonstrable bull ****. And the evidence that it is, is in positive abundance all over this board.

Here, lots of posts of mine exposing my country's Islamophobia and xenophobia in McGentrix's thread: Anti-Muslim Dutch politicians in hiding after death threats. Here, Walter's thread on Belgium: highest court finds popular Flemish party racist. Here, me again: Surviving as an asylum-seeker in Britain .... Here, me furious about the scandalous Dutch asylum-seeker policies. Here, dlowan about the Racist outbreak in Perth, Australia. Dlowan again on the mandatory detention for all persons arriving in Australia without legal immigration documents, which she thinks is just plain wrong.

You want more?

Apparently, liberals like Dlowan and myself have NO problem about discussing our countries' all too widespread xenophobia, the scandalous clampdowns on asylum-seekers, et cetera. Hell, Dlowan actually invited you to join the discussion on the treatment of refugees in Australia several times.

So all too obviously, it is NOT bringing up the question in itself that makes us angry.

Now you generally dont take part in those threads. But instead, you will occasionally make a cheap shot in the general direction, getting the actual facts wrong, and only coming to the subject in the first place in order to fend off some criticism or other about your country - which is why it's usual in some thread about the US. Diversionary tactic anyone?

Perhaps all of that is what angers other people?


What in heavens name are you on about? Who's ignoring it? It's THE hot-button issue around! No topic has been more discussed in Holland, or more heatedly, the past five years than immigration/asylum-seekers/xenophobia - and I bet the same thing goes for Australia.

Plus, it's spilled over plenty of times into this board too. Instead of making wild accusations about "liberals" who "seem [to be] fine" with "their discriminatory immigration policy" or who are "saying that addressing atrocities anywhere but America should be verboten", why dont you just click a few times through the board, perhaps use A2K search, to find any number of times those very liberals have discussed the topic?

You know, like where MsOlga posted about the abuse of mentally ill asylum seekers in Australia? Or where Dlowan expressed outrage about Australia's policy on Timorese refugees, posted about an Australian politician who likened the need to regulate immigrants to animal quarantine, or expressed being ashamed about her country over its immigrant/asylum policies? Or where I wrote about the hateful Danish asylum-seeker policies, or the British tabloid papers' hate speech against refugees?

But no, obviously people like us are "fine" with our countries' discriminatory immigration policy. Obviously it's just that we don't want to talk about it. That must be it.

Note that about the only times YOU bring it up is when someone complains too much about America, or about Republicans/conservatives and you feel the need to strike back.

Perhaps that's what angers people so much? You posting an occasional cheap shot, most ever only to fend off some unwanted criticism of America, getting the facts wrong too - and then, when called on that, acting like you're fighting a moral crusade on racism against us, people who are actually working on these issues?

You must be joking, no?

No.

If all of that is true, instead of reacting angrily to me when I brought it up, someone would either pass it by because it didn't interest them, or say something to the affect that yes, that's true, we actually talked about it here or there... Or calmly point out what they disagree with. Reacting in anger at the mention of it, I found odd.

No need to explain further.

My facts are correct, however.

And, it is dippy for you to constantly attempt to portray me as imagining I am on some sort of brave conquest for global racial equality. There are plenty of people who find interest in other countries' histories and policies. I have become interested as others have--and found things that disturb me. I have been on this board for a couple of years and have not happened upon the information I shared here today until this week.

There's no crime in that, nor a brave crusade.
I think you overreacted. Of course, I looked back and see that I made a couple of overstatements, as well. It happens.

Strange bedfellows indeed. Some folks are sure having fun with the current digression, seems like.

Stop digressing immediately! Let's get back to the aftermath of Bush's election. Or to the rightwing's insistence that the very last thing the world needs is One World Government and, thus, to prevent that horridly undemocratic threat to sacred sovereignty, America (properly defined as rightwing) will fill in that greedy vacuum.

Blatham


Blatham, could you explain to me the difference between one world government and the one party system we are currently enjoying in the US? Isn't it odd that the republicans are against one and working their tails off to achieve the other?

BBB

Lash writes


I immediately took your original comment as intended. While saying there are no blacks in Australia is of course extreme, there are apparently too few to show up on any demographic charts of representative races/ethnic groups in Australia, unless that has changed in the last 10 years or so. There are numerous reasons why this could be so, but it is not unreasonable to include the possibility of a hostile environment, past or present, being one of them.

The point you were always making however, is that some are so quick to condemn the United States for its flaws while giving a pass to eveybody else's flaws. But of course you, the conservative, cannot be allowed to point this out and others must attempt to boost their own sense of self-superiority by putting you down.

Your only real error, as sometimes is mine, was in taking the bait.

BBB
Whomever said their were no, or few Blacks (if dark skin was meant because I don't know if there was a common origin) in Australia appears to have forgotten the continent's aboriginal population. Last time I looked, Oz had not been entirely successful in making them disappear or assimilating them so they were not noticed.

BBB

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:_bCG61P2ThgJ:news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4435009.stm+australian+aboriginal+people+DNA+history&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:sZXxYbGIJA4J:www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/archive/Issue-June-2002/groves.html+australian+aboriginal+people+DNA+history&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

The issue however was immigration, not original populations.

BBB

Just pointing to one of those common upsidedown elements in rightwing propaganda. On the one hand, the promotion of OWG paranoia (effectively, posited desires by unknown internationalist elements to take over America, main culprit or facilitative institution being the UN - this is one of Bolton's schticks) while on the other hand, proceding to, themselves, advance US hegemony over international institutions. Domestic politics being just a precursor and similar strategy.

blatham, We just have to hope that things will change with the next administration. Bush is seeking to get funding to do research for Bunker Busters - a nuclear weapon. This guy is more dangerous than Osama and Saddam put together.

BTW, this is the same guy who claims "each life is precious!"

And, as I've posted elsewhere, it appears that Karl Rove joins Scooter Libby as the second admin official who revealed the identity of a CIA operative. You gotta just love the integrity of this administration.

I think what troubles me most of all is that these guys have come in to the White House, the people's house, and just slimed the place.

"...integrity of this administration." ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ROFLMAO

Blatham


Blatham, you inspired me to look for a game that would occupy the administration's slime balls so they can't so much harm:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbbc/c-agents/mission.shtml?7

Here's the RNC's new ad mocking recent moonbattery by Democratic leaders.

Democrats: NO PLAN, NO VISION

Set to the tune of "Wild Thing"....hilarious!

JW you seem to have run out of Spiro Agnew quotes so I thought I'd throw this one in for you, your hero said
What a guy huh? you republicans sure now your way around word smithing.