Should white people be discriminated?

First off, I don't recall sharing any "plan" with you. Son, you are full of it and that's obvious. When you aren't assuming, you're being dishonest with the people on this site.

Now, if you want to argue about immigration, start a thread. But the reality is, you're wrong. Here is the ruling by the United States Supreme Court:

"Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. ... it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States." Arizona v United States 641 F. 3d 339 (2012)

So, you are wrong on two counts, but even if being here were a crime (and it is not) every suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law by a jury of their peers. It's not only presumptuous but downright dangerous for you to set yourself up as judge, jury and executioner while wailing and crying about the lawyer lobby and corrupt judges.

I can't force you to be right. If you have a problem with Due Process, then so be it. But, when it's your a** being hauled off to jail, I'll get quite a chuckle when you are screaming about the corrupt system you help build with your lobbying efforts.

Since I don't know what "plan" you refer to, I have worked out many "plans" in think tanks. Given the context here, I'd suggest this link:

http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/open-borders-or-not.503426/page-19#post-1067535132 See post # 363 and that one resolves the immigration debacle.

I have no plans for discriminating against whites, but you provide sound logic as to why most people would not want you for a friend. If you are representative of the white race, your prejudice and ignorance - not to mention jumping to conclusions would challenge ANYONE to examine the whites as a race.

 

I agree, you have not shared any plan. Instead you are just b*tching and complaining and telling everyone else that they don't have some secret experience that you insensate only you have. You brought up immigration (not I) and you did it sounding just like Jose Antonio Vargas, which was just sad. No one was ever calling it a crime for the State not to remove a criminal (it is at the State's discretion when it will or won't enforce State laws) but that does not make illegal aliens somehow legal. This conversation is just getting silly now.

And I just told you I'm Native American, not White. Although as a Native American I can think of several justification for discriminating against Whites, but the truth is I only discriminate against one race in the US (and it's not White, Black, Brown, or Yellow) it's Blue. I have no respect for the men and women in uniform (any uniform) or their tie-wearing colleges. They all lack Wisdom and use authoritative power to make up for their short-comings.

 

Oddly I agree with your last paragraph. Other than that, you are dishonest once again.

PRIOR to your last posting, I did not discuss any plan with you. The only issue close to race that we had any discourse about was immigration, so there was a plan put on the table. So, then you claim I didn't have a plan, to which you had ready access to, and that would make you????

I've never "insensate" any secret experience - whatever in the Hell you meant. If you were trying to say I'm "insinuating" some secret plan, then you are lying again. There is no secret. My methodology don't lend itself to discussion boards. We're up to a dozen paragraphs per exchange. Nobody is willing to read that much. I can't give you a college degree in strategies in a few discussion board exchanges. Just to list your nonviolent legal avenues of redress would be quite a list. Then there are the extraordinary measures. It all depends upon what you're trying to accomplish.

But, it's just like you didn't know who I was that got me invites to town hall meetings. I told you, it's no secret. Being a local Republican Party official at the county level was, most likely the primary factor for the invite. Going on local tv and radio to introduce new ideas and bounce ideas around was the other factor. There is nothing secret about it.

If you have a new idea or want to be heard, there are all kinds of opportunities. Get off your a** and away from the computer. Start with a local idea. Where I am, the county commission allows for the public to address them once a month. Tell them a new idea and follow through. Write letters to the editor. Show up at the local Party meetings of whatever political party you support. After your first idea catches traction, you move up the chain from county issues to state issues, etc. That's what an activist is.

It's not a freaking secret. I pitched my ideas relative to immigration. IF / when the American people catch on that they are being fleeced by the pols on that issue and the bottom line doesn't change, they will be willing to consider ideas that haven't been before mainstream before. It's a slow process. It doesn't mean that no plan exists. You were given access to it.

 

I didn't say I didn't know how you got invited. I said if you got invited to these public events and had the exchange you claimed to have had then I should be able to figure out who you are by reviewing it myself on public record (which so far I haven't been able to find anything). I looked for this material myself, I didn't ask you to prove it, I took you at your word that it happened and that meant there was a record of it out there. You deserve your privacy though (that's why I didn't pressure you), but I'm struggling to get an angle on you because most of what I've seen is that if anyone questions you somehow that makes them an idiot. You don't even bother to consider what they say. All you focus on is on is who questions you and they're just automatically wrong from there on out. That's what I was referring to as your "secret plan" because you claim to have a plan but you don't share it, and when other people put forth their ideas "they're idiots." My plans would never include "peaceful means" because I'm not being treated peacefully now and if I showed any signs of resistance to that I surely wouldn't be suddenly responded to peacefully then. I would be a fool to publicly state on a message board what plans I know would be effective. I don't show my hand to my enemy (and the enemy is watching).

 

I didn't say I didn't know how you got invited. I said if you got invited to these public events and had the exchange you claimed to have had then I should be able to figure out who you are by reviewing it myself on public record (which so far I haven't been able to find anything). I looked for this material myself, I didn't ask you to prove it, I took you at your word that it happened and that meant there was a record of it out there. You deserve your privacy though (that's why I didn't pressure you), but I'm struggling to get an angle on you because most of what I've seen is that if anyone questions you somehow that makes them an idiot. You don't even bother to consider what they say. All you focus on is on is who questions you and they're just automatically wrong from there on out. That's what I was referring to as your "secret plan" because you claim to have a plan but you don't share it, and when other people put forth their ideas "they're idiots." My plans would never include "peaceful means" because I'm not being treated peacefully now and if I showed any signs of resistance to that I surely wouldn't be suddenly responded to peacefully then. I would be a fool to publicly state on a message board what plans I know would be effective. I don't show my hand to my enemy (and the enemy is watching).

 

You have your perceptions, but you are trying to B.S. your way through what actually happened.

On one hand you claim you take me at my word, in the same paragraph you admit to looking for some kind of documentation so that you can identify me. We both realize why. Maybe you should call Congressman Rob Woodall. He was Linder's aide in those days and got Linder's job when Linder retired. Tell him you want any videos on town hall meetings from the years 1997 thru 2000 that were held in Gwinnett county.

Nobody is an idiot for questioning what I say. The problem with you is that you do a lot of assuming; most of it is wrong and you try to go through the back door to insult me.

I really don't know what your plan is just as you don't understand where I'm coming from. To save you a lot of time, my primary concern is Liberty. If America could be summed up in one word, it would be Liberty. The primary foundational principle of our Republic lies in Liberty. Our forefathers were, by and large, Christian. They understood Liberty from a Christian perspective.

II Corinthians 3:17 -" Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord [is], there [is] liberty."


Leviticus 25:10 - "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim liberty throughout [all] the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a jubile unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family."

I need not multiply the scriptures. You get the idea. The major foundational principles upon which this Republic rests is found in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

This absolutely cannot refer to just citizens of the United States as none existed. So, IF the founding fathers are correct and your CREATOR (your God, whomever you deem that to be) bestows upon you unalienable Rights that our founding fathers claim are self evident truths, then who in the Hell are YOU to decide who gets those unalienable Rights and who doesn't?

If you're going to hide behind the law by accusing people of being criminals, then be consistent. Stick with the law. My position is simple: Either GOD grants you your Rights or government does. WHO bestowed your Rights upon you? It's a simple question. IF God granted you your unalienable Rights, then he bestowed upon ALL men as per the Declaration of Independence.

IF government grants rights, then government is a god and if you are going to hide behind a de facto / illegal government operating out of Washington District of Corruption as the source of your argument, then you have, as best as I can tell, sworn fealty to that government and are subject to all its laws and the actions of its enforcers.

God (whomever you deem that to be) bestowed upon all men unalienable Rights. Man made laws can govern naturalization - which is citizenship. Government can grant to us some man made rights that are actually the privileges and benefits of citizenship (like voting, getting welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) What legitimate, constitutional government cannot do is to interfere in the free market or suppress the Liberty of our fellow man. Whether for good or for bad, the United States Supreme Court has decided that foreigners, regardless of immigration status, have certain constitutional protections.

Now, given that, Diamond, I do believe that a person is an idiot in not figuring that reality into their political strategies. I've been watching the whites lose ground on the immigration issue for over 15 years now (since they got front page billing on the immigration issue.) Whites, at least the overwhelming majority, clearly intend to deny to others their God given unalienable Rights. In doing so, it has cost the white people THEIR LIBERTY. Each time they attack foreigners the cost has been greater to the American people as opposed to their intended target.

Mark 8 : 36 "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"

I don't understand YOUR dog in this fight. You don't even claim to be white and this thread is about whites. White people that are chipping away at the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded deserve to be discriminated against. You seem not to agree and that is your prerogative. Still, I have my view.

 

I don't need to be White to have an opinion on if it's okay or not to discriminate against Whites. Btw, is your first name Neal?

 

Racism is racism regardless of the color of the racist. I don't know anyone who doesn't think that black on white racism is "excusable" because of the past.


When blacks use the word amongst themselves, it is "disempowering". When white people use the word it is emblematic of the history of white/black relations. But feel free to whine about the double standard.

Feel ashamed? Only if you are proud of your white heritage while ignorning the rather odious aspects of their global ascent.

 

You must mean personally. There are certainly enough commentators on the internet who make that very argument. And if you are in fact unfamiliar with those arguments, they you are too ignorant to have anything worthwhile to say on this subject.

 

Oh? Commentators on the internet? You mean individuals on the internet don't you? Like I said, I don't know of anyone who thinks balck on white racism is excusable because of the past. Unless of course you are referring to the whacko fringes, which many racists inhabit. Of course I do hear a lot of white racists making that acusation ad nauseum, as you seem to be doing. Grasping and regurgitating a bumpersticker, sans context and nuance. I'd be careful of yoru use of the word ignorant, particularly since it is appears so self descriptive.

 

Individuals who make comments, yes. Commentators, such individuals are called.

Oh, so you do know of such individual commentators, but think dismissing them as "whacko fringes" somehow excuses you from recognizing them.

Your the one who claimed ignorance of a wide spread and academic claim. I know about it and you don't. Who is the ignorant one?

You can educate yourself by starting here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...le-cant-be-racist_us_59230aa8e4b094cdba5615fc

Now, I am willing to concede that the Huffington post is home to many whackos, but they are mainstream leftist whackos, not fringe whackos.

And you better get with the program and insist that Black people aren't racist.

 

Just wanted to make sure your "commentators" were merely random people on the internet.

No, I wasn't clear about who you meant by commentators. OTOH, yes, I dismiss all of those that believe that black on white racism isn't racism because of the past history of white oppression of blacks to be on the whacko fringes. Or do you actually think its a legitimate position?

Well, thank for the link.

When one uses a truly simplistic definition that racism equals oppression, that is nothing but rhetorical nonsense. Racism encompasses one helluva lot more than simply oppression of a minority. I agree that there is no such thing as reverse racism. You'll note that the woman said "its not racism but it is bigotry" - seems semantics is not her strong point.

 

I am not sure what you mean by legitimate. I think it is widely held in academic circles and has been around for years and perhaps decades. I am sure the people who hold this position are sincere. It is a concept intertwined with the concept of "white privilege."

Happy to oblige. I think you will find that clear thinking is not the strong point of most SJWs.

 

I'm not Neal and you don't need to be white to have an opinion on the subject. You would need to be white, however, to understand my opinions as expressed here.

I mean you're talking about a race of people that still want to debate reverse discrimination when a white guy went all the way to the United States Supreme Court - and won, based upon a suit alleging reverse discrimination.

It's a culture thing and either way, most whites are on a one way path to self destruction.

 

I believe there is such a thing as white privilege. Is it an excuse for black/brown/yellow/red racism against whites? Nope.



Happy to oblige. I think you will find that clear thinking is not the strong point of most SJWs.[/QUOTE]

Actually the muddled thinking that imprecision in the use of language and the gymnastics it then entails creates is not the sole domain of SJWs. That is an issue across the human spectrum.

 

For those who are of sufficient age to remember the 1970s, the zeitgeist of the times was (1) that egalitarianism was a good thing; (2) that white people had experienced an undeserved advantage for far too long; and (3) that affirmative action (a.k.a. reverse discrimination) would be necessary for awhile (actually, for a time never specified) in order to obviate that disadvantage for people of color.

It was also a time in which liberalism--more precisely, democratic socialism--was widely seen as something embraced by all sentient adults.

Thankfully, this is no longer the case--especially among whites.

 

You are 100 percent right and you left out (though you have to move back a few years from the 1970s) that the immigration laws Ted Kennedy forced through Congress clearly discriminate against whites. Now non-whites get citizenship in disproportionate numbers to whites.

 

I am a great believer in white privilege, too. Some years ago there was an Audi advertisement in which an actor said that their "quattro" transmission technology was barred from certain auto races because it gave Audis an unfair advantage. The actor smirked, "I'll take any unfair advantage I can get."

My sentiments, precisely.

But only on the left is this imprecision of language intentionally weaponized by intellectuals. The motivation comes, I believe, from the failure of Black people to thrive despite civil rights laws, affirmative action, and the movement to ostracize racists.

Because racial equality is axiomatic, the only answer is that racism persists and is called "institutional" or "systematic" racism. A new scholarly book calls it "racism without racists."

 

This was probably due to the fact that non-whites vote disproportionately for the Democratic Party. (Ever since the time of FDR, they have been convinced, by Democrats and most of the media--which are approximately the same thing-- that this is in their best interest.)

 

How apropos.
Seems your facts are once again WRONG! Audio's transmission technology was not barred from racing. The entire Group B racing format was eliminated due to safety concerns. ALL manufacturers lost out on that one.

I guess you aren't familiar with the concept of spin. Weaponized by intellectuals? have you seen a Spicer presser?

No, racism does not persist solely as "institutional or systemic" artifacts. There has not been some miracle where all the racists and haters have come together to rejoice in equality, peace and love. Bigotry (of which racism is a subset) is one of the more unpleasant aspects of human nature and ignorance.

You haven't changed your views have you? You don't actually believe that racial equality is axiomatic do you?

 

It's probably because America has welcomed millions of refugees from troubled parts of the world. For instance, there are over 2 million Vietnamese Americans today and they were originally refugees in the 1970s, who were granted US citizenship. Otherwise, it's extremely had to get qualified for US citizenship by going through the normal channels, whether you're white or non-white. There are also approximately 1 million Korean immigrants, representing 2.4 percent of the US immigrant population. After the Korean War, they were fleeing the horrors of war and their number multiplied as their relatives joined in.

 

I was only reporting on a commercial I saw and only because I liked the tag line.

Spicer is not an intellectual let alone a univerisity professor.

I am only the humble reporter of what left-wing intellectuals are writing. If you don't like it, take it up with them. These left-wing intellectuals invent the theoretical basis for anti-racism and it is incumbent upon you to read and understand them in order to have this discussion. Otherwise, you are speaking from a position of ignorance.

No. I consider it patently false.

 

Discriminated against no. Segregated though yes. Whites should have their own area of the world to live in so that they don't oppress others as they seem to like to do.

Europe and North America would be fine places, and few other spot as well. Let's open up negotiations.

 

Gee, "reporting" on a commercial because you liked the message, yet got the details completely wrong. Gee, does that fit your definition of fake news?

No he obviously isn't very intellectual, yet he is a master of spin. Seems you are unfamiliar with this rather basic concept.

theoritical basis for "anti-racisim"? It isn't at all a "theory". It is a moral and ethical position. Its a religious position. It can be a legal position, but is sure as hell ain't "theoritical".

Not surprised in the slightest that a racist would think that.

 

No, my description of the commercial was accurate.

It is irrelevant to the point I am making.

The theoretical basis for "anti-racism" is called Critical Race Theory (CRT):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_race_theory#Definition

You are really painting yourself as a sort of "ignorant and proud of it" member of the left. You seem to be totally unaware of the racial dynamics being played out in this country, especially in the Universities.

Nor should you be.