[quote]TQB wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
Objection:
I would take great umbrage if my American children were denied the choice to move to the US if they so wanted, despite the being born in Spain and Sweden respectively. You may wish to note that your logic would exclude many children of American servicemen as well.
Now you usually make sense, even when I don’t agree with you, so I rather think this was a slip of the pen.
TQB[/quote]
Yes i would presume what he meant, was that if your an AMERICAN citizen then you get MORE rights than a NON American citizen in AMERICA.
According to Cockney i could go to the US and demand to be treated like a US citizen, ala the Mexicans.
[quote]TQB wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
Objection:
I would take great umbrage if my American children were denied the choice to move to the US if they so wanted, despite the being born in Spain and Sweden respectively. You may wish to note that your logic would exclude many children of American servicemen as well.
Now you usually make sense, even when I don’t agree with you, so I rather think this was a slip of the pen.
TQB[/quote]
I think you’re taking my words too literally. Of course US citizens born abroad are still US citizens, I believe it says so explicitly in the constitution and I assume that would be the case for just about every other nation on earth.
But as a US citizen, I wouldn’t presume to have the right to live in Canada, or France, or Russia. They might allow me to move in, but I would expect to have to jump through some hoops, learn the native language, etc.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.[/quote]
I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Chushin wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I totally agree that the anti terrorism laws are a joke. The first person arrested under them was an old man who stood up and shouted abuse during a labour party conference.
Also the incitement to racial hatred laws are wrong there should be freedom of speach and freedom of the press.
Those are both things that I agree are wrong with Britain. Interestingly a lot of this type of legislation seems to have been copied from US laws.
To which US laws regarding “the incitement to racial hatred” (or lack of “freedom of speach and freedom of the press”) do you refer?.
Title 7 of the Civil rights act 1964
18 U.S.C �??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2101
18 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 245
You do not know what you are talking about.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, July 2, 1964) was a landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed racial segregation in schools, public places, and employment.
Conceived to help African Americans, the bill was amended prior to passage to protect women, and explicitly included white people for the first time. It also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
To circumvent limitations on congressional power to enforce the Equal Protection Clause imposed by the Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Cases, the law was passed under the Commerce Clause, which had been interpreted by the courts as a broad grant of congressional power.
Once the Act was implemented, its effects were far reaching and had tremendous long-term impacts on the whole country. It prohibited discrimination in public facilities, in government, and in employment, invalidating the Jim Crow laws in the southern U.S.
It became illegal to compel segregation of the races in schools, housing, or hiring. Powers given to enforce the bill were initially weak, but were supplemented during later years.
Title VII
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of 42 U.S.C. Ã??? 2000e [2] et seq., prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. Ã??? 2000e-2[21]).
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. An employer cannot discriminate against a person because of his interracial association with another, such as by an interracial marriage.[22]
In very narrow defined situations an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise.
To prove the Bona Fide Occupational Qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between sex and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the “essence” or “central mission of the employer’s business,” and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187 (1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196).
The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on sex (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer’s preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School Ã???Ã Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).
Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the “unlawful employment practice” for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[citation needed]
There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:
Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to the federal government under 42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
Native American Tribes
Religious groups performing work connected to the group’s activities, including associated education institutions;
Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. �??�??�??�??�??�??�?�§ 2000e-4[21]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Every state, except Arkansas and Alabama maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ).
Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for more than 19 weeks in the current or preceding calendar year.[citation needed]
In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs.
In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998).
Title VII has been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (See Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act[23] , Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).
Again you post a wall of text without understanding it. You must be about 0-100 on facts by now.
Title VII is one of the bits of legislation that is used to prosecute so called hate speech as employers can be prosecuted for tolerating hate speech by their employees.
You posted a couple of numbers with nothing to put them into context with the point that you are trying to make. Then you want to act like we are idiots because we don’t know the relevant case law and know exactly what you are refferring to. That’s bullshit. If you can’t support what you are saying with actual examples don’t waste our time.
I was asked a simple question as to which laws. I answered. If you are too dense to do a google search for them then sorry. btw, this line of argument was considered by you to be good enough for push
So you are equating a law that is clearly intended to stop workplace discrimination (including by other employees) with whatever British law allows for a woman to be charged for something she said in her own home?
Firstly she was in a place of work and secondly I wasn’t equating anything, I was answering a question.
No the complainant was not in her place of work. She was in a bed and breakfast that the couple who have been arrested ran out of their home.
So a bed and breakfast is not a business then?
[/quote]
I will explain this to you a second time because you are obviously challenged. And infected with the British penchant for using and enforcing laws in ways in which they never were intended.
Title seven covers discrimination against employees in the workplace. The woman who filed the complaint was not an employee of the B&B. Therefore she was not in her place of work so she did not suffer a case of workplace discrimination.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
He hasn’t said anything racist, he just doesn’t like immigration. He has a right to not like immigration.
Thank you and WTF ?
Because i don’t want English people to be a minority in their OWN COUNTRY i’m racist ???
You sure your from Manchester ???
If you were i dunno how your not AGREEING with me…
I work and hang with people who are not of English descent, that doesn’t mean i still cannot be proud of my country and wish to have it not turned into so politically correct we can’t even celebrate Christmas without being hounded for it.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
What the ???
No based on where they were born. That’s the MAIN reason for the rise of BNP in Manchester, families are being pushed off the housing list to give them to asylum seekers and others, due to goverment bylaws.
So to re-iterate ENGLISH born people are NOT GETTING HOMES so they can be given to NON- ENGLISH people because of our idiotic governments non existent immigration policies and roll out the red carpet to bend over for the idiotic EU.
If thats racist then mate your logic is severely screwy. Since when is it racist to look after your OWN countrymen first, guests second ???
Your last statement is the very definition of racism, treating people differently based on where they are from.[/quote]
Cock your statement is the very definition of stupidity. It is your stupid attitude that is causing all the trouble in Britain. Your views are contradictory of one another. You are a hypocrite who picks and chooses ideology to suit your purpose and you think we are to stupid to see what you are doing.
When it suits your purpose we are all individuals and should be treated as such. But when it doesn’t suit your purpose it’s wrong to treat people differently because they are all the same.
ie A few pages back we discussed the Pakistani tube bombers. Then you indignantly chastised me that your mates back at Uni were Pakistanis who were perfectly wonderful blokes and it is wrong to treast Pakistanis as being all the same. Now you want to go after above300 and chastise him that is is wrong to not treat people as being all the same.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I had never heard of the European Nazi Party so I spent some time doing google searches for them. I couldn’t find anything about them. This is just another one of your bullshit exagerated or made up claims about the BNP.
Griffen is no worse than Cameron, Frown or Bliar but he is a lot more honest.
Sorry I should have been clearer I should have actually typed European (and American) Facist and Nazi parties. In each country it is typically called something different and the base ideologies of who they hate vary dependent on circumstances but at route they are groups of people who stir up attention based on espousing hatred against whichever group seems to be the easiest target. [/quote]
So basically you are trying to create a link to national socialism and if you can’t find an actual group to link them to you will just make one up. Which is perfectly okay in your mind because it’s acceptable to grossly exagerate or even lie about the BNP.
So you want us to believe that the BNP is solely a hate group while at the same time also want us to believe tha no other party in Britain uses hatred or jealousy to advance it’s cause. Certainly not the class warriors of the Labour party or your Guardianista pals or the communists of the UAF or the marxists of the Tory party.
[quote]
Obviously at the moment in many countries this is Islam. Islam is a slam dunk easy target. ‘They’ flew planes into the twin towers and put bombs on buses and the tube. [/quote]
That is because planes, trains, buses and buildings full of civilians have been blown up by muslims on every continent except Antartica and Australia, although Australians were targeted a couple hundred miles away in Bali and there have been atempts in Oz that were foiled.
Just because muslims have been violent towards their neighbors since the time of mohammad, that doesn’t make it okay and it doesn’t mean that we should have to put up with it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Yep look what they did in Northern Ireland, even when the Catholics were outnumbering the Protestants they still managed to get enough of them in to swing the vote.
Cockney seriously you are NOT seeing what people who live in the UK see.
Already there are skin head people popping up and asian nutter groups. Police are ruunning out of ways to deal with all the freaking nutter clerics telling US IN THE UK we are all going to die WHILE GETTING AID FROM THE UK.
We won’t need any 9/11 it’s already starting to pop and crackle over here with all the heat in the air. All it needs now is a spark and there will be mass riots going on.
You have just as much access to info as Sifu I FREAKING LIVE HERE. Right in the middle of North Manchester i think i have a better idea to be quite honest !
Where abouts in North Manchester? I used to live in Fallowfield so I know all about racial tensions in Manchester from walking through Rusholme during Eid.
If you think the racial tension is anything new just look at the Oldham Riots in 2001 or the Brixton Riots in 1981. Christ, you want to talk rioting in the Manchester area you can go back to the Peterloo riots in 1819.
I don’t want anyone to think that I believe the UK is some kind of utopia of racial harmony however the reason that we have boiling tensions at the moment is far more to do with higher levels of unemployment than anything else.
This is a classic case of Cock rationalizing to support his cognitive dissonance. What is happening today in Britain is a lot more than just people being pissed off over the economy. They had good reasons to be angry even before the economy tanked. The collapse of the economy has merely laid bare all that has been going on ever since Labour got back in power.
Back in 1981 I had friends who participated in the riots. What is going on today is not the same.
So your friends were as easily manipulated by the NF and BNP stirring up shit as you are. Figures.[/quote]
The BNP was founded in 1982 after the riots. My friends from the youth center were white and black. After the riot some of them came into the youth center wearing multiple watches that they aquired in the riot and were looking to sell. I got the distinct impression that they were not motivated by politics but by the opportunity for some ultra-violence and looting.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Sifu wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
300andabove wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
I spent all of last year in the UK so I am not that out of touch (was in London not Manchester)
Are you comfortable voting for the BNP given their links to the European Nazi party, facist terrorist groups and holocaust denial etc? I can fully understand your issues with the Tories and Labour but voting for a total scumbag like Griffen would not be something that I could countenance.
I have met the local BNP MP
He is sound out being right wing is going to draw alot of nut jobs, but for me i’d rather put one of them in than put some fucking wanker who only comes to Manchester during voting week.
It’s not just the un-employed that are voting for them, Manchester is seriously losing it’s identity. So they want what the normal English people want.
Less Johnny Foreigner PLEASE.
As my dad says, i never knew when i sent aid to Somalia, they’d come all the way to the UK to thank me and stay here permanently
OK so you are totally comfortable with your overtly racist views. At least you are honest about it.
Fuck you and your calling people racists. Who the hell are you to be judging people? You buggered off to a staunch Roman Catholic, Christian country where you don’t have to worry about being stuck in a sharia state. You have no right to be calling people racists just because they don’t want to their family to have to live under sharia law.
There is no other people on this planet who would be happy to have massive numbers of foreigners move into their homeland that their family has lived in for generations and displace them.
NuLabour has flooded areas like Manchester with immigrants while acting like the people who have lived there for generations don’t exist. It is not racist for people who are being displaced like that to say “hey what about us”.
I hardly ran off to Mexico to get away from Islam. I moved here because there were good economic opportunities and I could create a good life for my family here. [/quote]
It hardly matters why you went there. What matters is you are now safely far away from Britain living a new life in a country that is staunchly Roman Catholic, populated by people who remember their ancestors conquest by the Conquistadors who are quite unlikely to surrender to Islam without a fight. Your wife and daughter are safely away from Britain, if it becomes a sharia state they won’t be affected.
300andabove is living right in the middle of it all. If Britain does become islamist he is fucked. Despite that you have the unmitigated gall to call him a racist just because he doesn’t want to have to leave his home to find a place where he isn’t an outsider and the majority of people share his values and beliefs.
Cock you are a complete hypocrate calling a man a racist because he doesn’t want to live in a situation that you yourself don’t have to live in. Britain is full of hypocrates like you. A lot of them are politicians and some of them are my relatives.
They live in lilly white affluent communities where the limited contact they do have with immigrants is either their Indian doctor or the kabob shop on the high street. When they briefly venture outside the gates of their estate they think how wonderfully multi-cultural their comunity is.
You and they are living lives that are far removed from the great unwashed like 300andabove who are living in the “enrichment” zones, but that does not stop you from casting derision on those who have to suffer the real life consequences of all your idealism.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.[/quote]
You are living in a fantasy world. You don’t have a clue when it comes to healthy human interactions. People like you are dangerous. Unfortunately it is usually others who end paying for your fantasies.
[quote]TQB wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
Objection:
I would take great umbrage if my American children were denied the choice to move to the US if they so wanted, despite the being born in Spain and Sweden respectively. You may wish to note that your logic would exclude many children of American servicemen as well.
Now you usually make sense, even when I don’t agree with you, so I rather think this was a slip of the pen.
TQB[/quote]
Here I will make it clearer for you. It is perfectly reasonable that a people have the right to set guidlines as to who is part of their group and who gets to live in their homeland. Without that small populations could easily be overrun and dominated by the large ones.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.
I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
[/quote]
So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.
Obviously at the moment in many countries this is Islam. Islam is a slam dunk easy target. ‘They’ flew planes into the twin towers and put bombs on buses and the tube.
So it WASN’T a bunch of self-proclaimed Muslims that did all that in the name of Islam?
Damn!
Fooled by the Buddhists again!
Actually, I can see how their doctrine of compassion and tolerance could lead to that sort of behavior; not like the case with the “peaceful religion.” [/quote]
Though many Americans assume otherwise, most suicide bombers are not poor, violent Muslims, as explained in this special report from MIT’s Center for International Studies.
The rash of suicide bombings in Iraq and the suicide attacks in London earlier this month have focused attention on the motivation for such attacks and how to prevent them. A new study examines hundreds of suicide attacks and why individuals kill themselves to murder others.
University of Chicago Professor Robert Pape has collected evidence and developed a database on more than 300 suicide attacks that have occurred around the world since 1980.
Mr. Pape is the director of the Chicago Project on Suicide Terrorism, and has just published a book called Dying to Win, the Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism.
During a recent appearance on the VOA public affairs program, Press Conference USA, Mr. Pape says his research indicates that, every major suicide campaign has what he calls a secular and political goal, to compel democracies to withdraw military forces from areas the bombers view as their territory.
“Iraq is a prime example of the strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Before the American invasion in March 2003, Iraq never experienced a suicide terrorist attack in its history. Since the invasion of 2003, suicide terrorism has been growing rapidly. Suicide terrorism has doubled in Iraq every year that 140,000 American combat forces have been stationed in the country, and we are on pace now to set a new record for the year.”
Mr. Pape says suicide terrorism is not primarily a product of Islamic fundamentalism, although he says religion is used as a recruiting and fundraising tool.
He says the world’s leading suicide terrorist group is the Tamil Tigers, a secular Hindu group in Sri Lanka.
Mr. Pape says the Tamil Tigers have committed more suicide attacks than the Palestinian militant groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad.
He says the objective of compelling countries to withdraw military forces from territory the terrorists perceive as occupied has been the central goal of suicide campaigns in Lebanon, Israel, Sri Lanka and among separatists in the Russian republic of Chechnya and the disputed region of Kashmir, which is divided between India and Pakistan.
“Suicide terrorism is mainly a response to the presence of foreign military troops, that is mainly a response to the threat of foreign occupation, not Islamic fundamentalism,” he said. “This is a terribly important finding, because it means that the use of heavy military force to transform Muslim societies is only likely to increase suicide terrorists coming at us.”
Mr. Pape says his study of hundreds of suicide bombers who actually killed themselves to kill others indicates that most are educated and do not fit the common profile of a person who engages in self-destructive behavior. “What you see is very few fit the standard stereotype of a depressed, lonely individual on the margins of society seeking to escape some wretched existence. That is, very few are suicidal in the ordinary sense of that term. Instead, most are socially integrated, productive members of their community,” he said.
Mr. Pape says, to defeat suicide terrorism, the United States should return to what he calls offshore balancing in the Persian Gulf area.
He says during the 1970’s and 1980’s, the United States successfully managed its interests in the region by not permanently stationing troops in Muslim countries, but maintaining the ability to rapidly deploy military forces to hot spots when necessary.
Mr. Pape says the United States should develop the same strategy to defeat suicide terrorism in Iraq. “Over the next year, we should transfer responsibility for Iraq’s army to the Iraqi government, and then we should begin a systematic withdrawal of ground forces, not in a hasty way, but, so (that), over the next two or three years, we transition to a situation, where the Iraqi government is in charge of its army, and the United States has excellent relations with that new government,” he said.
Mr. Pape has presented his findings to members of the U.S. Congress, and hopes his research will help policymakers, as they continue efforts to boost the nation’s defenses against suicide terrorism. There has been no immediate response from Congressional leaders to Mr. Pape’s findings.
[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.
I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.
[/quote]
There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.
I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.
There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.[/quote]
There is nothing inherently collectivist in nationalism?
[quote]orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
orion wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.
I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.
There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.
There is nothing inherently collectivist in nationalism?
Really?
[/quote]
You make it sound like a nation is a hive of bees, with no autonomy, no process for change. For it to be “collectivist” it would have to be a fixed and permanent and enforced from the top down. In reality most nations aren’t Nazi Germany. The idea of what a nation stands for is always in flux, constantly being amended by it’s citizens, who have many different ideas of what their country and it’s laws should be. The fact that a nation is made up of millions, and no two citizens would ever agree point by point means that a nation can only have the loosest of collective identities.
But if you want to label what I’m talking about “collectivist nationalism” in order to make it sound bad, go ahead. It still beats that anarchist shithole of an alternate reality you propose in the Polanski thread.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
TQB wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
Objection:
I would take great umbrage if my American children were denied the choice to move to the US if they so wanted, despite the being born in Spain and Sweden respectively. You may wish to note that your logic would exclude many children of American servicemen as well.
Now you usually make sense, even when I don’t agree with you, so I rather think this was a slip of the pen.
TQB
Here I will make it clearer for you. It is perfectly reasonable that a people have the right to set guidlines as to who is part of their group and who gets to live in their homeland. Without that small populations could easily be overrun and dominated by the large ones. [/quote]
OK Sifu, time for the crunch question.
Do you consider that UK citizen of a different ethnicity than yours form part of the “people” you are referring to? Say, someone whose parents immigrated from the West Indies or India in the Sixties? Or Cockney’s kids, for that matter.
It was the Johnny Foreigner comment. Basically you are saying that people from other countries have different rights to those that you have based on nothing more than their race.
If someone wasn’t born in your country, they have no “right” to live in your country.
If someone wasn’t born into an aristocratic family they have no right to work in certain possesions or to own land.
All that is happening is class war all over again. People naturally want to define themselves as a discrete group by keeping others on the outside.
I know that the label “Marxist” gets thrown around too much in this forum, but what you just said is some Marxist bullshit if ever I’ve seen it. The people whose blood and sweat build a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. As part of those laws, they can decide what people and how many can come into their nation, and what tests those people have to pass to become citizens of that nation. You obviously subscribe to the wacko idea that borders are immoral. If that’s the case, you can just say it and I won’t waste anymore time trying to have an intelligent discussion with you.
So you are against collectivist “Marxism” but fore collectivist “nationalism”.
There is nothing inherently “collectivist” about nationalism, and there is nothing nationalistic about saying that the people of a nation have the right to make the laws of that nation. But I think you’re coming from the point of view of someone who wants to live in on a border-less “free market” planet. That sounds like another hellish utopia, so I’ll leave you to it.
There is nothing inherently collectivist in nationalism?
Really?
You make it sound like a nation is a hive of bees, with no autonomy, no process for change. For it to be “collectivist” it would have to be a fixed and permanent and enforced from the top down. In reality most nations aren’t Nazi Germany. The idea of what a nation stands for is always in flux, constantly being amended by it’s citizens, who have many different ideas of what their country and it’s laws should be. The fact that a nation is made up of millions, and no two citizens would ever agree point by point means that a nation can only have the loosest of collective identities.
But if you want to label what I’m talking about “collectivist nationalism” in order to make it sound bad, go ahead. It still beats that anarchist shithole of an alternate reality you propose in the Polanski thread.[/quote]
Reading comprehension-
Work on it.
And then, when we got rid of one sort of collectivist drivel, religion, we immediately had the next one, namely nationalism and when that stopped to work to incite wars we had fascism and socialism.
So, not only is your idea of a nation less than 300 years old it also caters to the same tribal instincts as the collectivist ideologies mentioned above