GG Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Speaking of intellectually shallow liberals, look who just showed up! Too bad you don't have an affinity for Jews, as you would have killed in the Catskills in the '50s. Henny Youngman would be proud of your tired act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Is it OK for a white person to marry a Puerto-Rican? After all, they ARE citizens. It could however change racial structure. Good job pouring gasoline on the hypocrites flame as they make their case that one must be a racist to oppose the invasion of our country. Bill, this has nothing to do with illegal immigration. This has everything to do with the fact that HA thinks its bad if a white person marries a brown person, because that would cause the loss of, as he terms it, "racial purity". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Bill, this has nothing to do with illegal immigration. This has everything to do with the fact that HA thinks its bad if a white person marries a brown person, because that would cause the loss of, as he terms it, "racial purity". Bill couches an agenda in terms like "invasion". He may not mean anything by that, but to me it sounds a WEE bit on the racist side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Bill, this has nothing to do with illegal immigration. This has everything to do with the fact that HA thinks its bad if a white person marries a brown person, because that would cause the loss of, as he terms it, "racial purity". I've never used the phrase "racial purity," but please don't let that stop you from putting words in my mouth. If you weren't allowed to misinterpret other people's posts, what purpose would your presence serve? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I've never used the phrase "racial purity," but please don't let that stop you from putting words in my mouth. If you weren't allowed to misinterpret other people's posts, what purpose would your presence serve? let's see...you post Bill, I just don't want to see any races die off or get assimilated into other races. If that makes me a "racist" in the eyes of a few loudmouthed, short-sighted, shallow liberals, so be it. (I'm not accusing you of being any of those things. But most of the posts coming my way apparently have been written by people whose brains have been washed completely clean.) I get it. you dont want racial purity, you just want to keep races separate and not allow intermingling. pu·ri·ty –noun 1. the condition or quality of being pure; freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc.: the purity of drinking water. 2. freedom from any admixture or modifying addition. Explain again how this isnt racial purity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Too bad you don't have an affinity for Jews, as you would have killed in the Catskills in the '50s. Henny Youngman would be proud of your tired act. Whenever you post something, Lenin's phrase "useful idiot" always comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 let's see...you postI get it. you dont want racial purity, you just want to keep races separate and not allow intermingling. pu·ri·ty –noun 1. the condition or quality of being pure; freedom from anything that debases, contaminates, pollutes, etc.: the purity of drinking water. 2. freedom from any admixture or modifying addition. Explain again how this isnt racial purity? My point--which as usual went right over your ugly little head--is that you misrepresented my terminology. Your original words were these--"as he terms it, 'racial purity'." I did not term anything "racial purity," because of the emotional baggage that phrase carries for brainwashed idiots like you. I simply spoke of a hope that races could continue to exist as they have in the past, which is certainly mild enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 My point--which as usual went right over your ugly little head--is that you misrepresented my terminology. Your original words were these--"as he terms it, 'racial purity'." I did not term anything "racial purity," because of the emotional baggage that phrase carries for brainwashed idiots like you. I simply spoke of a hope that races could continue to exist as they have in the past, which is certainly mild enough. i see. so instead of sounding like a neo-nazi hispanic hating racist, you are trying to sound like a politically correct neo-nazi hispanic hating racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Whenever you post something, Lenin's phrase "useful idiot" always comes to mind. Anything to do Uncle Volodya's bidding to spread the gospel to the proletariat. Maybe one day, we'll be as enlightened as the crew in Baden Baden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 I simply spoke of a hope that races could continue to exist as they have in the past And that would be...pure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orton's Arm Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 i see. so instead of sounding like a neo-nazi hispanic hating racist, you are trying to sound like a politically correct neo-nazi hispanic hating racist. Yup. More name-calling. That's so much easier than refuting the actual substance of my posts. Come to think of it, I've never seen you refute the substance of any argument. Which, by the way, is one of the reasons I call you an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 3, 2007 Share Posted April 3, 2007 Yup. More name-calling. That's so much easier than refuting the actual substance of my posts. Come to think of it, I've never seen you refute the substance of any argument. Which, by the way, is one of the reasons I call you an idiot. Let's review: the substance of your posts is that you believe that races should breed to remain pure, because racial mixing weakens cultures. What refutation do you think this deserves? Hell, what kind of substance do you think this is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Is this thread still about illegal immigration? Anyway is this a good or bad thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Is this thread still about illegal immigration? Anyway is this a good or bad thing? I'd say it's a good thing. Look at Buffalo to see what happens when a city loses population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 Is this thread still about illegal immigration? Anyway is this a good or bad thing? Do the math. Since a big knock against immigration is increased taxes, you think that on a net basis, total municipal expenditures would have decreased with the reduced population bases? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted April 5, 2007 Author Share Posted April 5, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...-opinion-center This op-ed argues that the Mexican birth rate is slowing as Mexico is adding more jobs of its own and that this will probably stop the migration into the United States meaning that we won't have enough low skilled labor as the baby boomers retire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...-opinion-center This op-ed argues that the Mexican birth rate is slowing as Mexico is adding more jobs of its own and that this will probably stop the migration into the United States meaning that we won't have enough low skilled labor as the baby boomers retire. That also means Mexican intelligence is becoming more heritable as they make more money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 That also means Mexican intelligence is becoming more heritable as they make more money. I'll bet HA responds in exactly 3.5 posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 That also means Mexican intelligence is becoming more heritable as they make more money. And are probably becoming less brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted April 5, 2007 Share Posted April 5, 2007 I'd say it's a good thing. Look at Buffalo to see what happens when a city loses population. But is it a good thing to have more here than the economy can sustain because there are more people than low paying jobs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts