Aren’t you the guy who said that war was never justified?
Sounds to me that you’re justifying a war.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Aren’t you the guy who said that war was never justified?
Sounds to me that you’re justifying a war.[/quote]
He’s an 18 year old punk-ass kid who’s into Euro-Gangsta Rap.
It’s like debating a 3-year old with a slightly better vocabulary.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
You fuckers entered Puerto Rico and occupied it and it was all Latinos lol.
I don’t see how Latinos living on occupied Mexican land is illegal.
The original mexican landowners who lived there were robbed of their land. They were oppressed by the police, Zoot Suit Riots anyone?
The illegals who entered the occupied land, were terrorized by your neo-slave gangs despite just trying to work.
Most of them were invited ruing WW2 originally, and learned to retaliate since the police wouldn’t give them any solace.
The Latinos are violent here, but we are talking Balkan level beef and not raw nascient racism.[/quote]
What in the fuck does Puerto Rico have to do with anything?
Where do you get this shit? Honestly.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
You fuckers entered Puerto Rico and occupied it and it was all Latinos lol.
…[/quote]
There were people there before the Spanish you know.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
There is a huge difference between “can’t” and “won’t”.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean that there is some sort of conspiracy in Washington? Because last I checked, money and the overseas (over)deployment of US military personnel was the only limiting factor here. And it goes without saying that most Americans want secure borders.
Once again, you prove your ignorance of how it works over here.
Hispanics are votes. The fastest growing voting block in the country.
Neither side wants to do shit to piss off the hispanic vote - votes they both think they can get if they are nice enough.
It has nothing to do with the war in the middle east. It is all about courting the hispanic vote, and turning a blind eye to any problem that may exist. [/quote]
So you really think it is a conspiracy by Washington. The ones footing the bill are the majority of Americans.
[quote]lixy wrote:
So you really think it is a conspiracy by Washington. The ones footing the bill are the majority of Americans.[/quote]
How much of a conspiracy can it be if people know what is going on?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
So you really think it is a conspiracy by Washington. The ones footing the bill are the majority of Americans.
How much of a conspiracy can it be if people know what is going on?
[/quote]
Are you sure enough people know about it? The reason I ask is because there doesn’t seem to be any real effort to curtail the problem. If I was American, I sure as hell would be seriously concerned. Sovereignty is at stake here.
[quote]lixy wrote:
rainjack wrote:
lixy wrote:
There is a huge difference between “can’t” and “won’t”.
Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean that there is some sort of conspiracy in Washington? Because last I checked, money and the overseas (over)deployment of US military personnel was the only limiting factor here. And it goes without saying that most Americans want secure borders.
Once again, you prove your ignorance of how it works over here.
Hispanics are votes. The fastest growing voting block in the country.
Neither side wants to do shit to piss off the hispanic vote - votes they both think they can get if they are nice enough.
It has nothing to do with the war in the middle east. It is all about courting the hispanic vote, and turning a blind eye to any problem that may exist.
So you really think it is a conspiracy by Washington. The ones footing the bill are the majority of Americans.[/quote]
By Washington? You don’t know much about America do you? The states and cities are in on it as are many employers and private individuals, hell they are driving it. They shield the illegals from INS, provide free schooling and healthcare.
There is no conspiracy, it is out in the open and it is not being driven by Washington any more than the tides are.
What I’m saying is, you are trying to make this about Latinos are the NEW KKK when the situation is totally different.
This situation has been going on for quite sometime.
Latinos in Cali have the worst end of the stick.
The ones who were legally there after Spanish and Mexican rule were oppressed and robbed of their land.
The immigrants who were invited during WW 1 and WW2 were unwelcomed afterwards, yet kept coming for economic reasons.
On formerly Mexican land.
They were victimized for not speaking English , at a disadvantage in society.
With the advent of modern times, were completely susceptible to attack by organized black and whie gangs because they had no recourse to the police.
Even in cases where they were legal and spoke English like the Zoot Suit riots, the system was designed to work against them.
This isn’t just some upstart kill Blacks thing here, there is a long history of violence and injustice in this region.
Latinos got the worst end of the stick.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Here I’ll just interject that I find it extremely amusing that people can consider a handful of Muslim women asking for a few “women only” hours at a single gym at Harvard to be evidence of the creeping invasion of Islam, and yet view the overt armed invasion of American territory and murder of American citizens by foreign nationals as an “illegal alien problem.” This is normally considered an act of war.
[/quote]
Great point.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Even in cases where they were legal and spoke English like the Zoot Suit riots, the system was designed to work against them. [/quote]
Swing it!
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
What I’m saying is, you are trying to make this about Latinos are the NEW KKK when the situation is totally different.
This situation has been going on for quite sometime.
Latinos in Cali have the worst end of the stick.
The ones who were legally there after Spanish and Mexican rule were oppressed and robbed of their land.
The immigrants who were invited during WW 1 and WW2 were unwelcomed afterwards, yet kept coming for economic reasons.
On formerly Mexican land.
They were victimized for not speaking English , at a disadvantage in society.
With the advent of modern times, were completely susceptible to attack by organized black and whie gangs because they had no recourse to the police.
Even in cases where they were legal and spoke English like the Zoot Suit riots, the system was designed to work against them.
This isn’t just some upstart kill Blacks thing here, there is a long history of violence and injustice in this region.
Latinos got the worst end of the stick.[/quote]
On the other thread, you mentioned that part of the Latino distrust of Jews comes from failure to integrate into your society. Here, when Latinos refuse to learn the language of an English speaking society, they are victimized.
California was owned by Mexico for about 20 years, and they tried to sell it to us before losing it to us in a war they were all too eager to fight. There were few Mexicans at all in the territories that they’ve now ceded to us. Many of them weren’t even Mexicans, but Spaniards.
I’m unaware of them being invited after WWI. I am aware that Pancho Villa and his men were raising hell along the border in the period from 1910 - 1920. A few Mexicans were also captured in Texas during the same period with a document called “The Plan of San Diego” that called for a no-quarter race war between whites and Mexicans, and the execution of all white men over a certain age.
When you say, “Latinos get the worst end of the stick,” does this apply to Latinos living in Latin American countries as well, or only Latinos living in the United States, which was founded by Great Britain, is English speaking, and has different values than those of Latinos?
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
What I’m saying is, you are trying to make this about Latinos are the NEW KKK when the situation is totally different.
This situation has been going on for quite sometime.
Latinos in Cali have the worst end of the stick.
The ones who were legally there after Spanish and Mexican rule were oppressed and robbed of their land.
The immigrants who were invited during WW 1 and WW2 were unwelcomed afterwards, yet kept coming for economic reasons.
On formerly Mexican land.
They were victimized for not speaking English , at a disadvantage in society.
With the advent of modern times, were completely susceptible to attack by organized black and whie gangs because they had no recourse to the police.
Even in cases where they were legal and spoke English like the Zoot Suit riots, the system was designed to work against them.
This isn’t just some upstart kill Blacks thing here, there is a long history of violence and injustice in this region.
Latinos got the worst end of the stick.[/quote]
Do your crying somewhere else. You are mostly talking out of your ass, or going off what your grandma told you,and talking out of her ass.
Cite proof. Give links. Your opinion is not the truth.
[quote]
Sloth wrote:
… I just read a article that we’ll be spending about 12 billion a month in Iraq while we can’t even secure our own borders. Unbelievable.
BostonBarrister wrote:
There is a huge difference between “can’t” and “won’t”.
lixy wrote:
Can you elaborate on this? Do you mean that there is some sort of conspiracy in Washington? Because last I checked, money and the overseas (over)deployment of US military personnel was the only limiting factor here. And it goes without saying that most Americans want secure borders.[/quote]
No conspiracy. Just a powerful constituency that doesn’t have the stomach to take the actions necessary to control the border: a wall and militarization. The President and certain elements of the Republican Party, along with just about all of the Democrats, are of this view. Most big businesses support open borders because they supply cheap labor; most “right thinking” liberals support open borders - or at least will wilt if called “racist” once for supporting border enforcement.
The immigration officials have done essentially nothing to enforce immigration laws against employers - a few high profile raids right after the Bush immigration bill failed, but a mere drop in the bucket and nothing since.
There was essentially a populist revolt against President Bush’s amnesty bill, which Congress was pushing through - it didn’t pass, but there’s certainly no stomach amongst the politicians to move toward enforcement. And none of the current presidential candidates would change that.
Bill Simmons had a good article on the Shaw murder:
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
No conspiracy. Just a powerful constituency that doesn’t have the stomach to take the actions necessary to control the border: a wall and militarization. The President and certain elements of the Republican Party, along with just about all of the Democrats, are of this view. Most big businesses support open borders because they supply cheap labor; most “right thinking” liberals support open borders - or at least will wilt if called “racist” once for supporting border enforcement.
The immigration officials have done essentially nothing to enforce immigration laws against employers - a few high profile raids right after the Bush immigration bill failed, but a mere drop in the bucket and nothing since.
There was essentially a populist revolt against President Bush’s amnesty bill, which Congress was pushing through - it didn’t pass, but there’s certainly no stomach amongst the politicians to move toward enforcement. And none of the current presidential candidates would change that.[/quote]
Thanks for replying.
It seems counterintuitive that the majority of Americans can’t be bothered to demand a solution to this problem.
Am I the only one seeing this as a probable tool in the upcoming election. Increasing the black and brown divide they so often claim exists.
Man actually, I think it is horrible this happened to that young man. But I’m starting to wonder, how do they actually know all this about the fact these guys were gangsters, and the young man had zero affiliation?
It seems the only witnesses are dead, it seems like they are filling in alot of blanks and making alot of assumptions.
Also, why did they indicate these were Latino gangsters if they are still looking for the killers?
This whole thing seems ridiculous to me on that level.
They took a tragic death and are using it as some kind of racist ammo to distance two groups.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Here I’ll just interject that I find it extremely amusing that people can consider a handful of Muslim women asking for a few “women only” hours at a single gym at Harvard to be evidence of the creeping invasion of Islam, and yet view the overt armed invasion of American territory and murder of American citizens by foreign nationals as an “illegal alien problem.” This is normally considered an act of war.
We at least tried to do something about Pancho Villa. Can we not at least try to do something about these vatos?
Thunderbolt? Any ideas? If only the guy on your avatar was alive today, he’d do something about it.[/quote]
Just checked out this thread.
A modern day Pershing? Modern America has no stomach for such a man.
That said, what to do about it - I concur with Boston about militarizing the border. Guarding and managing the sovereign border is a straightforward national security issue.
The California problem is caused, well, by California - the multicultural guilt trip that passes for politics in a leading “progressive” state acts as an enabler to the violence. Weakness invites aggression. Problem is, there can’t be fair criticism without someone shrieking “racism!”, when it is quite clearly behavior that is the problem. But, California will burn itself into the sea before any decent confrontation of “La Raza”, etc. will take place.
That is one reason why stronger federal gusto is needed at the border. Even if Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico decided to get realistic about border security, California will always be flimsy - stern enforcement might hurt someone’s feelings.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
Here I’ll just interject that I find it extremely amusing that people can consider a handful of Muslim women asking for a few “women only” hours at a single gym at Harvard to be evidence of the creeping invasion of Islam, and yet view the overt armed invasion of American territory and murder of American citizens by foreign nationals as an “illegal alien problem.” This is normally considered an act of war.
We at least tried to do something about Pancho Villa. Can we not at least try to do something about these vatos?
Thunderbolt? Any ideas? If only the guy on your avatar was alive today, he’d do something about it.
Just checked out this thread.
A modern day Pershing? Modern America has no stomach for such a man.
That said, what to do about it - I concur with Boston about militarizing the border. Guarding and managing the sovereign border is a straightforward national security issue.
The California problem is caused, well, by California - the multicultural guilt trip that passes for politics in a leading “progressive” state acts as an enabler to the violence. Weakness invites aggression. Problem is, there can’t be fair criticism without someone shrieking “racism!”, when it is quite clearly behavior that is the problem. But, California will burn itself into the sea before any decent confrontation of “La Raza”, etc. will take place.
That is one reason why stronger federal gusto is needed at the border. Even if Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico decided to get realistic about border security, California will always be flimsy - stern enforcement might hurt someone’s feelings.[/quote]
And you better believe as a resident of Northern California…it makes me seethe with anger. I’ve quoted before, ‘a country without borders is not a country’. I was proud when there was outcry from the people and the amnesty didn’t pass. Very proud.
Yet it was too narrow a squeak by for my comfort. As much as the whole world wants to call Ron Paul a quack…I believe he would’ve been our only hope in putting into action a firm stance with regard to this issue.
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
Am I the only one seeing this as a probable tool in the upcoming election. Increasing the black and brown divide they so often claim exists.
Man actually, I think it is horrible this happened to that young man. But I’m starting to wonder, how do they actually know all this about the fact these guys were gangsters, and the young man had zero affiliation?
It seems the only witnesses are dead, it seems like they are filling in alot of blanks and making alot of assumptions.
Also, why did they indicate these were Latino gangsters if they are still looking for the killers?
This whole thing seems ridiculous to me on that level.
They took a tragic death and are using it as some kind of racist ammo to distance two groups.[/quote]
I used to live within a mile of one of these south Los Angeles neighborhoods where this was going on. A fourteen year-old black girl was shot dead for being on the Mexican side of the street. Don’t tell me they’re making assumptions. Go tell that to Cheryl Green’s family. Unbelievable! $%%#W#$%%^^!@@!@#!!!
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=local&id=4957467
http://www.knbc.com/news/15499893/detail.html?subid=10101581
I used to live near there. The minute you cross Western blvd. into Harbor Gateway, you see graffiti from the Mexican “Tortilla flats” gang. There have been at least four shootings of blacks there in the past couple of years. I don’t want to hear your apologies!