Minutemen

[hspder]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I think I’m with you on this one. It might be true that statistics will back up various work classes.

However, assigning preferences to races in such a manner is silly at best. At the same time, we’ve been admonished not to degenerate into this area, so that probably weighs into ignoring those unfortunate statements.[/quote]

Vroom, please re-read my post. I’m sure that if you do you’ll understand I was not assigning preferences to races – I said, before that statement, that these were “trends that sustain stereotypes”. Such obvious trends that anyone that lives here has plenty of empirical evidence to sustain them. And yes, what I said is based on Department of Labor statistics, not on employment, but of job applications, which, in California, have a section where you say what is your ethnicity.

Then I followed by saying “Do I attribute this to race? No. It has nothing to do with race, or genetics.”

So I fail to see where I assigned preference to races; I started by sharing with you Department of Labor statistics, and then said that I personally don’t think it has anything to do with race.

I’m sure if you re-read Joe and sasquatch’s posts, you’ll also notice that they misspelled Aleksandr’s post from “perceived options” (what Alek said) to “perceived OPINIONS” and then ran with with misspelled version, which grossly changes the meaning.

This doesn’t have to “degenerate” the discussion. This is directly related to people’s perceptions of illegal immigrants – and their perception about their own OPTIONS – and I’m sure we can have a civilized discussion on it, even in spite of continued attempts from a couple of people of derailing it.

If you have a better explanation for the facts, let’s hear it – this was the best one that I could come up with, but that doesn’t mean it’s the correct one.

[Aleksandr]

The problem isn’t reserve size, rather the rate at which it can be extracted. If it can’t be extracted fast enough, it doesn’t matter how much is there. As for getting hydrogen from eectricity and water, that is true, but since so much electricity comes from gas fired plants, you get back to the same problem.

As for the suburbs, they have to go. The living system in the US and canada has been called the biggest misalocation of resources in human history. I’m not saying tear down the burbs right now, but emphasis should be put into constructing small cities, rather than sprawl. I doubt that there is a need for gov intervention on this, though. Well planned communities are selling at a premium compared to suburbs.

And as for nuclear technology not being developed, perhaps if the government didn’t have such heavy hands in the oil industry, it would be more likely that they would deregulate, no?

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]hspder wrote:
I’m sure if you re-read Joe and sasquatch’s posts, you’ll also notice that they misspelled Aleksandr’s post from “perceived options” (what Alek said) to “perceived OPINIONS” and then ran with with misspelled version, which grossly changes the meaning.
[/quote]

you’re correct, I did get the options/opinions wrong.

I’m not changing my theory about what would’ve happened to me had I posted that though.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Private transportation and suburbs should be the first to go.

Well, I’m all for getting rid of private transportation. And suburbs, since it is the suburbs and their structure that are making public transit such a hard thing to implement and sell outside the East Coast.

However, I hope you understand the political and economic unfeasibility of what you’re proposing: getting rid of private transportation and suburbs would mean complete re-construction of half of the populated areas of the US. Yes, they were poorly designed in the first place, creating a huge over-reliance on electricity and private transportation, but who would pay for correcting that mistake as long as there is a perceived option of not doing it?

[/quote]

Just stick everyone in work camps. That way we can walk to work.

Arbeit Macht Frei.

[hspder]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
I’m not changing my theory about what would’ve happened to me had I posted that though.[/quote]

Racism is a touchy subject. People from the left and right will throw the racist flag left and right. You have to admit you’ve done that before yourself, so I don’t think it’s fair for you to complain about receiving the same treatment sometimes.

Could my post be construed as racist? Almost anything you say about race can be construed as racist, as this thread has shown. It’s just a question of developing tunnel vision and getting caught on one statement rather than all the statements before and after it. If you take my chain of postings and everything I say together, you’ll see a very different picture than if you look at that one paragraph.

Now, I do still believe this whole Minutemen thing is, in great part, about racism. Hence my insistence in talking about it.

Unfortunately that makes it even touchier than it already is, but hopefully we can all settle on a civilized discussion were we are able to address that touchy subject without personal attacks…

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Private transportation and suburbs should be the first to go.

Well, I’m all for getting rid of private transportation. And suburbs, since it is the suburbs and their structure that are making public transit such a hard thing to implement and sell outside the East Coast.

However, I hope you understand the political and economic unfeasibility of what you’re proposing: getting rid of private transportation and suburbs would mean complete re-construction of half of the populated areas of the US. Yes, they were poorly designed in the first place, creating a huge over-reliance on electricity and private transportation, but who would pay for correcting that mistake as long as there is a perceived option of not doing it?

Just stick everyone in work camps. That way we can walk to work.

Arbeit Macht Frei.
[/quote]

I’m glad you said that and not me.
I had 3 or 4 responses typed but deleted them all.
I find that whole line of reasoning apalling.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]hspder wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
I’m not changing my theory about what would’ve happened to me had I posted that though.

Racism is a touchy subject. People from the left and right will throw the racist flag left and right. You have to admit you’ve done that before yourself, so I don’t think it’s fair for you to complain about receiving the same treatment sometimes.

Could my post be construed as racist? Almost anything you say about race can be construed as racist, as this thread has shown. It’s just a question of developing tunnel vision and getting caught on one statement rather than all the statements before and after it. If you take my chain of postings and everything I say together, you’ll see a very different picture than if you look at that one paragraph.

Now, I do still believe this whole Minutemen thing is, in great part, about racism. Hence my insistence in talking about it.

Unfortunately that makes it even touchier than it already is, but hopefully we can all settle on a civilized discussion were we are able to address that touchy subject without personal attacks…

[/quote]

actually, no.
I didn’t start doing it until I was fed up with it being done to me…here.
After I made what I thought were good faith efforts to understand stuff from a different perspective better and got killed for it.
Just for the record, of course I don’t think you’re a racist–but I’m betting had I said that someone would have said I was.
That’s my only point about it.

Okay, time for serious on topic stuff:
WHY do you believe the Minutemen are mostly about racism?
When did it become racism to want your borders and property protected?
And when did it become wrong to protest when you don’t agree with the government?
And since the current federal government from GWB on down seem hell bent on turning the southwestern states into illegal alien stop overs, the only way for these guys is to go out and watch the borders themselves.

So–without acting like a professor from one of the most liberal schools in the nation–why do you think they’re racist?

[Zap_Branigan]

Joe, I couldn’t let that slide.

Saying the suburbs have to go is absolutely moronic. I have lived in the burbs for the last 34 years of my life and never had to drive more than 7 miles to work (3 different professional jobs 6 different houses/apartments in the last 15 years) The whole argument is sheer ignorance.

Why not say cities have to go because that is where the crime is?

Or farmland has to go because they employ illegal laborers.

Maybe we can round up 70% of the earths population and kill them. That will preserve our natural resources.

[stellar_horizon]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
… Unless you make it your mission to shoot kids who cross through your yard on the way to school, …

Now that they have metal detectors in schools, where else can you shoot at them?[/quote]

I’m sorry but scrolling through this relatively heated thread, I burst out into laughter after reading this. Nice one zap.

[hedo]

I think to be racist means to judge a person or a group of people differently because of who they are rather then waht they do.

Now to the minutemen. I don’t think they are racist. I think they are reactionary and dealing with a problem the government will not. It’s a political statement more then anything. It is effective and I think serving it’s purpose.

[Aleksandr]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Private transportation and suburbs should be the first to go.

Well, I’m all for getting rid of private transportation. And suburbs, since it is the suburbs and their structure that are making public transit such a hard thing to implement and sell outside the East Coast.

However, I hope you understand the political and economic unfeasibility of what you’re proposing: getting rid of private transportation and suburbs would mean complete re-construction of half of the populated areas of the US. Yes, they were poorly designed in the first place, creating a huge over-reliance on electricity and private transportation, but who would pay for correcting that mistake as long as there is a perceived option of not doing it?

Just stick everyone in work camps. That way we can walk to work.

Arbeit Macht Frei.

I’m glad you said that and not me.
I had 3 or 4 responses typed but deleted them all.
I find that whole line of reasoning apalling.

[/quote]

What about that line of reasoning bothers you?

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
hspder wrote:
Aleksandr wrote:
Private transportation and suburbs should be the first to go.

Well, I’m all for getting rid of private transportation. And suburbs, since it is the suburbs and their structure that are making public transit such a hard thing to implement and sell outside the East Coast.

However, I hope you understand the political and economic unfeasibility of what you’re proposing: getting rid of private transportation and suburbs would mean complete re-construction of half of the populated areas of the US. Yes, they were poorly designed in the first place, creating a huge over-reliance on electricity and private transportation, but who would pay for correcting that mistake as long as there is a perceived option of not doing it?

Just stick everyone in work camps. That way we can walk to work.

Arbeit Macht Frei.

I’m glad you said that and not me.
I had 3 or 4 responses typed but deleted them all.
I find that whole line of reasoning apalling.

What about that line of reasoning bothers you?[/quote]

That you’d say that in such a matter of fact way–“hey, I’ve looked at the problem and the solution is to do this, who cares what the people think of it and who cares about free choice” kind of thing.
The dustbin of history is full of people who thought they knew better than everyone else.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]hedo wrote:
I think to be racist means to judge a person or a group of people differently because of who they are rather then waht they do.

Now to the minutemen. I don’t think they are racist. I think they are reactionary and dealing with a problem the government will not. It’s a political statement more then anything. It is effective and I think serving it’s purpose.[/quote]

you mean like me being judged because I didn’t grow up in an area that provided me with interaction with any people besides other honkies?

[hspder]

This will be my last post on this thread; I’m really tired of the jabs and having to back in circles instead of moving to new ground.

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
So–without acting like a professor from one of the most liberal schools in the nation–why do you think they’re racist?[/quote]

Please go back a few posts and read again what I said about just that.

There are some other comments on this thread by other people that give credence to that belief.

I’m also with Professor X on his comments towards rainjack’s justification that this is about defending your private property.

Another thing that augments the belief that this is mostly about racism is that I see that this movement is focusing the attention on Mexican illegals, rather than on all the other illegal immigrant groups, from Asia and Eastern Europe, which amount to an even bigger problem that is even more urgent – if not for anything else, because of Sex Slavery.

A Central Intelligence Agency report leaked to the New York Times describes a flourishing trade in slave labor that brings some 50,000 women and children into the United States every year to serve as prostitutes, domestic servants or bonded workers. The report estimates that the number of slave laborers imported into the US from around the world has grown rapidly over the past decade, and predicts their ranks will continue to increase.

Over the past two years, while up to 100,000 victims came into the US, where they were held in bondage, federal officials estimated that the government prosecuted cases involving no more than 250 slave-laborers.

The countries named as the primary sources of traffickers are Thailand, Vietnam, China, Mexico, Russia and the Czech Republic. Others that are increasingly providing victims include the Philippines, Korea, Malaysia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Brazil and Honduras. Noteworthy in this list is the prominence of countries enjoying the supposed blessings which come with the introduction of capitalist market relations.

And, as far as I know, sex slaves don’t really do much to fuel economic growth. Or do they?

Anyway, I digress. You know my positions, I’ve documented them along with my justifications, and I’m not going to repeat myself ad infinitum.

Over and out.

[Aleksandr]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:

That you’d say that in such a matter of fact way–“hey, I’ve looked at the problem and the solution is to do this, who cares what the people think of it and who cares about free choice” kind of thing.
The dustbin of history is full of people who thought they knew better than everyone else.
[/quote]

As I explained in my next post, I think the market will take care of it. If petroleum prices continue to increase, eventually, it will no longer be worthwhile for companies to ship goods via transport trucks. Although North American railway systems are pathetic, it’s only a matter of time until improving them yields a positive net present value.

Further, individuals don’t like to pay enourmous amounts for transportation, and may favour public transportation, or live in better planned communities, further de-emphasizing highways. When this happens, expenditure on highways also decreases. A reduced maintenance results in higher expenses for trucking companies, and thus less trucking, and so forth.

Although this is speculative, there is currently a premium placed on housing in well planned communities. This provides huge incentive for developers to move away from sub-ubrs and towards functional communities.

So, what I was saying is not “tear down the burbs and force everyone into cities”, rather it is speculation on how the market will resolve the coming problem.

[Joe_Weider]

what’re you going to do for employment for the thousands of people who currently are employed in the transportation industry?
And how are they going to be able to afford to live in your planned communities?

And what role will Al “der Suprema” Shades have in this new society?

[sasquatch]

hspder

I’m glad that was your last post because once again, you went way off base.

You justified your racism belief by saying that this is all about the mexican immagrants and not the ones from Europe and Asia. Read the damn title of the post–Minutemen–protecting our border from illegal crossings. What did you think you were going to see. Something about European and Asian immagrants.

I don’t see RJ as racist one bit. He is there and has a feel for what’s going on. Read all of his posts and you should come up with that conclusion. To take one reference and base a man’s character on that is ridiculous.

That would be like me thinking you are some pompous, psuedo-intellectual, look at me how liberal I am professor from some snooty college (U-N-I-V-E-R-S-I-T-Y like B-E-R-K-E-L-E-Y or S-T-A-N-F-O-R-D)

Again the thread was about illegal Mexican’s, so it should not surprise you that this is what the Minutemen are about as well asthe thread. And I thought all you guys were so well read.

Huh, look at me, making stereotypical observations about people I’ve never met.

Love to T-Nation
Now, I wouldn’t do that!

[Aleksandr]

[quote]Joe Weider wrote:
what’re you going to do for employment for the thousands of people who currently are employed in the transportation industry?
And how are they going to be able to afford to live in your planned communities?

And what role will Al “der Suprema” Shades have in this new society?
:)[/quote]

What am I going to do? I am going to do nothing. It’s a free market economy, after all. But, if heavy development does take place, there are going to be a hell of a lot of contruction jobs. How will they be able to afford this? I don’t know, how do people buy houses now?

But all these questions should have been addressed in the 50’s, when they started making suburbs everyewhere. This is just how I see things playing out.

[Joe_Weider]

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
Joe Weider wrote:
what’re you going to do for employment for the thousands of people who currently are employed in the transportation industry?
And how are they going to be able to afford to live in your planned communities?

And what role will Al “der Suprema” Shades have in this new society?

What am I going to do? I am going to do nothing. It’s a free market economy, after all. But, if heavy development does take place, there are going to be a hell of a lot of contruction jobs. How will they be able to afford this? I don’t know, how do people buy houses now?

But all these questions should have been addressed in the 50’s, when they started making suburbs everyewhere. This is just how I see things playing out.[/quote]

well I didn’t mean to put you on the spot, I was just curious if your plan had taken the sudden influx of unemployed people into it.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Professor X wrote:
… Unless you make it your mission to shoot kids who cross through your yard on the way to school, …

Now that they have metal detectors in schools, where else can you shoot at them?

I’m sorry but scrolling through this relatively heated thread, I burst out into laughter after reading this. Nice one zap.[/quote]
.

Glad you liked it Stellar