David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

What slurs are you talking about?

Did you read Layman's last three posts where he makes up stuff about what I believe, attacks two elected officials, falsely claims that NCLR supports the "re-conquest", rants about "naive liberals", and finishes it all up with "they are winning" (without specifying who "they" are). I like to think that it is "We" who are winning (as in "We the People") when immigrant rights are defended through our democratic process.

I am an American (I was born here). I support immigrant rights and La Raza. I don't want to kick White people out of California or change any borders. Layman is attacking (pretty viciously) any American who disagrees with him. But sorry, I am as much as an American as he is. Not only am I voting on the national level, I am voting locally for immigrant rights. I recently went to the State House to lobby my representatives for a bill making Massachusetts a Sanctuary state. There are many Americans (myself included) who strongly support this bill.

And when I say "American" I mean American. There are lots of Americans who disagree with Layman on immigration. We are actually pretty divided (as polls say) and it gets more complex because it isn't a single issue.

The definition of "American" I am using is the legal one. An American is someone who was born here (as I was) or has gone through the legal process of naturalization. This definition includes many Mexican-Americans, Asian Americans, Jewish Americans, Muslims homosexuals and liberals. We are all Americans (assuming we meet the definition).

That is all I have to say about that. If you aren't supporting Layman, then I will just ignore him.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

Finn doesn't need to read my posts. He's already spoken from his own experience and quoted that notorious mexican-hater, Ceassr Chavez, on the subject of La Raza. Once again:

Quote:

“I hear more and more Mexicans talking about la raza—to build up their pride, you know,” Chavez told me. “Some people don’t look at it as racism, but when you say ’la raza,’ you are saying an anti-gringo thing, … La raza is a very dangerous concept. I speak very strongly against it among the chicanos." (Chavez)

0 Replies

Quote:

La Raza Vows to CONQUER Southwest America and Give it to Mexico

La Raza, which translates to “the race,” has a well-documented history of promoting anti-white racism and the “Reconquista” of the southwest United States (an area they refer to as Aztlan).

Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (MEChA), a radical subsidiary student organization based on college campuses across the country, released “El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan” (The Spiritual Plan for Aztlan) claiming rightful ownership over the southwestern United States following the “brutal gringo invasion of our territories.”

“Aztlan [does not belong] to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada,” it said.

The final two sentences translate as “for the race, everything. Outside the race, nothing.”

http://www.eutimes.net/2017/03/la-raza-vows-to-stop-wall-conquer-southwest-america-and-give-it-to-mexico/

This video sets forth La Raza's strategy to out-populate and eliminate the U.S. government in the southwest U.S. pretty clearly.

We will outpopulate, then kill, you if you don't go back to Europe, Gringos.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Layman very well articulates the main issue. He disagrees with liberals, but rather than engage in a thoughtful discussion, he attacks them. He insists "La Raza" wants to take apart America, and that liberals are naive. It is pretty easy for anyone with the slightest bit of critical thinking skills and 3 minutes on google to see the flaws in his argument. But, he isn't making a rational argument. He is making a emotional, partisan attack to discredit people with whom he disagrees.

It is impossible to have a reasonable discussion as long as people take this emotional, sensationalist position where no one ever concedes, and no one even admit that people on the other side are decent Americans who just happen to disagree.

That is what is happening now as America continues splitting along our political fault lines. Each side has its propaganda videos, and websites and lines of attack. Very few of us stop to try to understand other points of view or to question our own.

I cling to the hope that maybe there will be other people, particularly conservatives (because I prefer discussing things with people with different perspectives), who want to stop the mud slinging and have a discussion on the issues.

As I said before, I have no problem pushing back on my own side when they step over the line. I am not always in these threads, but if I see someone throwing around the "racist" label I will make a point to step in. If you want my support and you feel that people on my side are crossing the line, PM me.

It would be nice to see the same from the other side.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

If you're so anxious to "discuss the issues," Max, then explain the Mexican soccer fans/haters is LA. What psychological dynamics are in play here? This was a crowd of about 70,000 that everyone saw, so don't try denying that it happened, OK?

Of course you don't have to be a foreigner to hate the USA. Cheese-eaters prove that every day.

1 Reply

@layman,

I am anxious for an intelligent discussion on the issues, Layman. Do you think that you and I can have an intelligent discussion on the psychological dynamics of fan behavior at a soccer game?

An intelligent discussion starts with each person understanding the point of view of the other. It is a matter of respect... and you can have respect and thoughtfulness even when you disagree.

You are starting with an ideological picture of Hispanics hating America, and then you are googling for stories to fit your preconceived notions. You don't seem to even be fact checking them. That is not the basis for an intelligent discussion.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

Max, do you oppose deporting illegal immigrants?

1 Reply

@layman,

Yes, I am an American who opposes deporting most "illegal" immigrants. There are lots of Americans who feel this way. That is why so many elected officials are supporting sanctuary cities and states.

You have every right to disagree with me. But, it doesn't mean you aren't a good American.

3 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

Yes, I am an American who opposes deporting most "illegal" immigrants.

OK, fair enough. You are quite free to "oppose," as an intellectual matter, any law you want to oppose. You are free to argue that there should be no penalty for murder, if you want.

That said, do you believe that you, your city, or your state, is only obligated to comply with federal laws that they don't "oppose?"

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

What's the point of immigration if folks can just show up and they get to stay?

2 Replies

@tibbleinparadise,

tibbleinparadise wrote:

What's the point of immigration if folks can just show up and they get to stay?

Excellent question, Tibble. Of course the implication is that anyone, anywhere in the world, should be free at any time to unilaterally decide that they are going to become permanent residents of the U.S, in part, of course, because they want free **** from the American people (to the tune of about $18,000/year per person, and about 113 billion annually).

Why not make the cost to U.S. taxpayers 113 trillion, and have 100's of millions of foreigners come plop their sorry ass down here, eh? It's only "fair."

I wonder if Max locks his doors at night, eh? Probably not. I imagine he has large signs in his yard saying "Homeless People Welcome Here." I bet he has dozens of bums in in living room, his dining room, his bedrooms, his front porch, his backyard, etc., and that he spends every hour of every day cooking for and feeding them, eh?

0 Replies

Western society tends to believe that it is legitimate for property to be privately owned, and therefore endows the private owner with the right to do what he wants with his own property.

Commies the world over reject the concept of private property as illegitimate, claiming that "property is theft."

Any old cold, broke, hungry bum should be free to enter Max's house anytime to raid his refrigerator, start a fire to keep warm, and then sleep naked on the floor of his living room to get his needed sleep. Then he should be free to take Max's TV on his way out so that he can pawn it for enough money to buy a bottle of cheap wine.

If Max makes any effort to prevent this, by locking his doors, for example, then the bum should be free to break in with impunity. These poor, unfortunate people need help, and Max would just be a terrible person to deny it to them. The bum would be completely justified in breaking in the doors of such a horrible person.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

maxdancona wrote:

There are lots of Americans who feel this way. That is why so many elected officials are supporting sanctuary cities and states.

And, needless to say, there are lots of Americans who don't feel this way, although that's not really even the issue here:

Quote:

Sanctuary city bans could spread to other states after Texas law signed

A new Texas law cracking down on ‘sanctuary cities’ could inspire other states to take a similar approach, even as the changes spur strong opposition from local Texas officials.

Republican Gov. Greg Abbott signed SB-4 into law Sunday evening, effectively banning sanctuary city policies in Texas and giving law enforcement officers the right to ask the immigration status of anyone they stop. Under the law, officers who fail to comply, or cooperate, with federal immigration agents could face jail time and fines reaching $25,000 per day

So far, only Texas, Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee have officially passed bills into law banning ‘sanctuary policies.’ Virginia attempted two measures in the Republican-led legislature, but both were suspended after Democratic Gov. Terry McAuliffe threatened to veto.

But Florida and Louisiana seem to be next in line to consider official policies.

In Florida, HB 697, which would require county and local law enforcement agencies to comply with and support enforcement of federal immigration law, has passed two committees and is awaiting a full vote in the House. Louisiana’s measure, which passed out of a House committee last month, would prohibit sanctuary policies and require law enforcement to contact ICE agents if a person is detained for any reason and unable to provide proof of citizenship or immigration status within 48 hours.

The days of the cheese-eaters flouting federal law are coming to an end, just as they did with Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and Bull Connor, eh?

Quote:

Sheriff Sally Hernandez of Travis County, which includes Austin, initially refused to honor federal detainer requests if suspects weren’t arrested for immigration offenses or serious crimes such as murder. But before Abbott signed the bill, Hernandez vowed to conform to the ban if it became law.

In El Paso County, meanwhile, officials could be in a tough spot. While the new law presses for cooperation with federal immigration officials, a settlement the county struck over a decade ago led to a policy barring deputies from enforcing federal immigration law. Still, the county sheriff's office does not plan to stand in the way of federal detainers.

0 Replies

@tibbleinparadise,

I'm not a fan of sanctuary cities. It puts cities in direct conflict with state and federal laws and makes it tough for people to do their jobs.

I'm also not a fan of just deporting everybody that isn't a citizen. There has to be a sensible way to:

1) Identify the really bad folks and do something with them: prison or deportation.

2) Identify minors (under 18) and fast track them to citizenship so long as they have no serious criminal history

3) Identify students (like college kids) and offer them a similar fast track to citizenship or student visa.

4) Identify the rest of the adults and put them on track to citizenship, work visa, or whatever OR if they aren't interested peacefully take them back to their country of origin with information on what they need to do should they want to come back, temporarily or permanently.

I have just under five acres of property in town, surrounded by neighbors. I have no issues with the majority of my neighbors. Every once in a while we get kids playing in the field. I have a couple options. I can be a total douchebag and yell and scream and pull the "get off my lawn" bit. I can ignore them, but that's not really responsible of me. I generally go back, have a chat, and make them aware they are in my yard. If they are respectful and aren't tearing things up I let them know my "rules" and leave them alone. If they are little shits I ask them to leave. It does no good to put up a giant fence or patrol the property line or lob threats, it just makes me look like an asshole. BUT, if they are going to play in my yard, they are going to follow my simple set of rules.

We need to be okay with folks wanting to come to the US, we have a nice place here. We just need a more simple set of rules in place so the good folks can stay. It makes focusing on the bad folks a whole lot easier.

2 Replies

@tibbleinparadise,

This is a reasonable position. Your position is not that different than my own. I agree with you about a pathway to citizenship for adults who came illegally who aren't otherwise criminals. I think you and I could probably reach an agreement pretty easily (if we were the ones in charge).

The only difference is that I don't think you understand the sanctuary cities issue very well.

1) Many sanctuary cities are pointing out that they aren't breaking any federal laws. Mayor DeBlasio of New York city has challenged Jeff Sessions to tell him what laws they are breaking. Sessions has so far not come up with anything.

2) Many States are supporting sanctuary cities. It is state Attorneys general that are challenging Trumps executive order against sanctuary cities. Trump just lost the case against the States.

3) It is not unusual to have a conflict between the federal government and states or localities over the enforcement of federal law. This has often happened with conservative issues; like "illegal guns", religious freedom and civil rights.

The conservatives who have long trumpeted "State's Rights" are being hypocritical.

2 Replies

@tibbleinparadise,

We have immigration quotas, as we should. These quotas cannot generally be exceeded. But there is no mandate that every quota be met--it is a maximum cap, not a minimum requirement.

The primary question about admitting immigrants should NOT be whether this would be a desirable thing for the immigrant wannabe. Of course it would be a good thing for every uneducated, unskilled, impoverished foreigner to come to America and be given, at taxpayer expense, a standard of living they could never hope for in their own country.

The primary question should be, and always has been, whether the immigration of any given foreigner is good for the USA. Unemployable free-loaders drain our resources. Immigrants offering needed skills, who have the independence to support themselves, and who completely support western values are what we should be looking at.

If admitting one single immigrant would also serve to deprive an equally qualified American of a job, then not a single immigrant should be admitted. We have a serious problem with unemployed Americans, and don't need to exacerbate it by gratuitously bringing in foreigners, just for the sake of being "nice" and "generous." Charity starts at home. Likewise, our federal expenditure and debt is unfathomably enormous. We don't need to add to it for the sake of "saving" some sharia-loving muslim from the middle east.

America cannot solve the world's problems, nor should it be trying to at the expense of correcting our own domestic problems.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

There are thousands, maybe millions, of foreigners who have respected our laws and dutifully applied through proper channels to be allowed to immigrate. Many have been waiting for years for the opportunity to immigrate.

One problem with giving special treatment and "fast-tracking" to illegal immigrants is that it sends the wrong message and deprives other deserving immigrants of their opportunity to come to America.

It's not being "fair," at all. It's simply indulging, ratifying and rewarding the illegal actions of criminals who have broken our laws, at the expense of those who have respected them.

It kinda like passing a law saying that every convicted felon must be given a job before the applications of law-abiding citizens for the same jobs can be considered.

But that would probably be just fine with cheese-eaters because, as it stands, convicted felons are discriminated again. Discriminating (aka making rational judgments) is just plain WRONG, whatever the supposed reason for it.

1 Reply

@layman,

Quote:

There are thousands, maybe millions, of foreigners who have respected our laws and dutifully applied through proper channels to be allowed to immigrate. Many have been waiting for years for the opportunity to immigrate.

One problem with giving special treatment and "fast-tracking" to illegal immigrants is that it sends the wrong message and deprives other deserving immigrants of their opportunity to come to America.

This is one of the strongest arguments made by the other side. I think he goes a little too far when he compares it to felons (no one is demanding that "illegal" immigrants be given jobs). But this is a logical argument that has some emotional currency.

I am a bit curious about his obsession with "cheese-eaters". I think this originates from the anti-French sentiment after France declined to support the Iraq war. It seems a little outdated.

I do, in fact, like cheese.

1 Reply

@maxdancona,

I love cheese. I also love all my Latino friends and neighbors. Good folks doing the American dream thing.

A few years ago we were having some work done on the house. The crew that was doing the concrete stuff we're all Latino. One day they didn't show up. They had gotten into an accident (somebody ran a stop sign and hit their truck) and turns out none were here legally and there were all being held for deportation.

They were really nice, hard working guys and did a great job on our brick. I still think of them and hope they sorted out how to get back legally.

1 Reply

@tibbleinparadise,

tibbleinparadise wrote:

They were really nice, hard working guys and did a great job on our brick. I still think of them and hope they sorted out how to get back legally.

Probably everybody knows an illegal alien that they personally like. But that aint the question.

The sole criterion for (otherwise unlimited) immigration is NOT "is this a likable, honest person?"

It is a question of national interest, and necessarily includes the willingness and ability to control our borders. If all our border patrol agents did to control the influx of illegal immigrants was to chat with them a spell to see if they were "likable," they would be betraying the responsibilities they are entrusted with.

For good reasons, they are not authorized to let anyone come on in, ad libitum, simply because he seems to be a likable person. No more than a bank teller is authorized to give everyone who comes in that seems like a "nice guy" hundreds of dollars from the bank till.

1 Reply

David Horowitz: Democrats are the party of hate

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know