Unreal. Dems Give Mexican President Standing Ovation After He Attacks Arizona (Video)

[Angelhair]

The thought of Legal Mexican Americans having to have to carry their birth certificates around like this was some kind of nazi run country is un American.

Of course he got a standing ovation. I stood up and clapped for him as well. Thanks for the vid.

Legal Mexican Americans??? Isn't that a misnomer?

You mean like, "Legal Irish Americans, or legal Italian Americans"?

No, I mean simply Irish Americans, Italian Americans, Mexican Americans. The fact that they are americans make them legal - got it? And NO, they don't have to carry their b/c. Stop listening to the loonie-left crap.

 

[Foxfyre]

The fact is that the Arizona law is even less rigid than the U.S. law. The U.S. law re non citizens does allow reasonable and sensible profiling while the Arizona does not.

Further, the Mexican law is far tougher and more punative than our own. To be in Mexico illegally is a felony, and those visiting there had better have the right documentation if they are questioned for any reason by law enforcement. Even Mexican citizens in Mexico are required to produce ID if stopped and questioned or they will be detained, jailed, or whatever until their identity can be verified. Illegals filtering into that country from Central and South America are not treated at all nicely.

It seems incomprehensible that there are those who would just open the borders and let anybody and everybody in rather than run the risk that somebody who was legal might have to show identification. Since more than 76% of Arizonans, almost certain that includes Hispanics, approve of the law, who are the rest of us to tell them how to run their business?

 

[hortysir]

calling a black republican an uncle tom might not be "politically correct" (and that is precisely why I used that term), but it is certainly not evidence that I am racist. I quite simply am not. You are the one who denies the existence of a concerted southern strategy on the part of the GOP well into the second half of the 20th century and a strategy that continues to bear fruit today as evidenced by the strength of the GOP in the once solid democratic south. I stand by my assessment of Steele for willingly working for such an organization.

oh yeah... and Philadelphia Mississippi was just a coincidence!

Was it just a coincidence that Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican?

 

[Foxfyre]

calling a black republican an uncle tom might not be "politically correct" (and that is precisely why I used that term), but it is certainly not evidence that I am racist. I quite simply am not. You are the one who denies the existence of a concerted southern strategy on the part of the GOP well into the second half of the 20th century and a strategy that continues to bear fruit today as evidenced by the strength of the GOP in the once solid democratic south. I stand by my assessment of Steele for willingly working for such an organization.

oh yeah... and Philadelphia Mississippi was just a coincidence!

Was it just a coincidence that Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican?

Maineman often has some astute observations and makes some good points. But on this issue he's pretty tunnel visioned. If a black man is supposed to be somehow so different than anybody else--an observation that automatically makes the observer racist--then no black man can get involved in politics at all because not only have both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated some racist qualities in their past, so has the so-called black community.

Where you gonna go that has a lily white pure and unsullied past?

 

[maineman]

calling a black republican an uncle tom might not be "politically correct" (and that is precisely why I used that term), but it is certainly not evidence that I am racist. I quite simply am not. You are the one who denies the existence of a concerted southern strategy on the part of the GOP well into the second half of the 20th century and a strategy that continues to bear fruit today as evidenced by the strength of the GOP in the once solid democratic south. I stand by my assessment of Steele for willingly working for such an organization.

oh yeah... and Philadelphia Mississippi was just a coincidence!

Was it just a coincidence that Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican?

up until the late 60's, the democrats in the south were the party of Jim Crow. After LBJ signed the civil rights act and lost the south to the republicans, they and their southern strategy have alienated all the black voters who used to vote for them because of Jim Crow.

Now... be a man and answer my question about Philadephia.

 

[maineman]

calling a black republican an uncle tom might not be "politically correct" (and that is precisely why I used that term), but it is certainly not evidence that I am racist. I quite simply am not. You are the one who denies the existence of a concerted southern strategy on the part of the GOP well into the second half of the 20th century and a strategy that continues to bear fruit today as evidenced by the strength of the GOP in the once solid democratic south. I stand by my assessment of Steele for willingly working for such an organization.

oh yeah... and Philadelphia Mississippi was just a coincidence!

Was it just a coincidence that Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican?

Maineman often has some astute observations and makes some good points. But on this issue he's pretty tunnel visioned. If a black man is supposed to be somehow so different than anybody else--an observation that automatically makes the observer racist--then no black man can get involved in politics at all because not only have both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated some racist qualities in their past, so has the so-called black community.

Where you gonna go that has a lily white pure and unsullied past?

People tend to identify with other groups of people. No man is an island. There are varying degrees and circles within circles of allegiances. In the arab world, for example, family clan and sect always trump nationality. In America, people self identify with family, with race, with religion, with political party, with socioeconomic status, with regional location. It is why all of New England rejoiced when the Red Sox won the world series in '04 even though very few of us live in Boston proper.

Black Americans identify with other black Americans. Irish Americans identify with other Irish Americans. Labor union members identify with other labor union members.

The existence of a southern strategy by the GOP is well known, and Steele even admitted as much himself at DePaul last month. I personally could NEVER work for an organization that utilized a strategy specifically designed to minimize the importance of a group of people that I self identified with. Michael Steele clearly has no such objections to doing precisely that.

It was not a coincidence that Reagan chose Philadelphia Mississippi to be his VERY FIRST campaign stop after winning the GOP nomination, and for the audience in Philadelphia that day, "state's rights" had one meaning and one meaning only, and especially to Edgar Ray Killen who was, no doubt, applauding wildly from the audience.

The GOP,IMHO, will always turn a blind eye to racism in the south as long as the white folks there continue to elect republicans...but will, at some point rue that strategy when the white folks demographic shrinks in relation to other ethnic groups. Arizona has put them in a bind with Hispanic voters and, as I also said earlier, for every black voter that Steele is able to bring into their fold, they will lose 10o because of the "racism at lunch counters is the lunch counter owner's business" position of Rand Paul.

 

[Murf76]

calling a black republican an uncle tom might not be "politically correct" (and that is precisely why I used that term), but it is certainly not evidence that I am racist. I quite simply am not. You are the one who denies the existence of a concerted southern strategy on the part of the GOP well into the second half of the 20th century and a strategy that continues to bear fruit today as evidenced by the strength of the GOP in the once solid democratic south. I stand by my assessment of Steele for willingly working for such an organization.

oh yeah... and Philadelphia Mississippi was just a coincidence!

No, it's not a "coincidence". It's just more made-up, racial pot-stirring from the usual Democrat suspects.... backbiting, divisive, recycled pap ala Jimmy Carter.
The Reagan Information Page:1980 Campaign:Neshoba County Fair Appearance

The utterly disgraceful behavior of this administration in its poor treatment of Arizona and its abject REFUSAL to secure our borders is just more of the same.

 

[Cecilie1200]

and see steph... it's just a matter of perspective. From where I sit, YOU all are the enemies within...

Why, Because we Respect the rule of Law? ~BH

do you really respect the rule of law, or just those laws that you personally approve of?

Respecting the rule of law is not the same as respecting individuals laws, Mensa Boy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

do you really respect the rule of law, or just those laws that you personally approve of?

Yes I do as a matter of fact. I am a Law abiding citizen. Even if I disagree with certain Laws, I still don't violate them. ~BH

so...do you agree with Rand Paul where he said that business owners had the right to decide who they did business with?

You mean YOU don't agree with the right to freedom of association?

 

[Cecilie1200]

so...do you agree with Rand Paul where he said that business owners had the right to decide who they did business with?

Absolutely. The Government has no right to tell a Private Business owner who they have to serve or hire. Now I personally don't believe in banning someone based on their race, but I think that if someone did, it would be a poor business decision. ~BH

so...just to be clear here.... you believe that, if you own a lunch counter, you have the right to refuse to serve anyone whose skin is not white?

Once again, you mean to tell us that YOU DON'T believe in the right to freedom of association?

 

[maineman]

interesting. a self serving Reagan site says one thing... the news media says another. No doubt who murf the surf will believe. To some kopolaid soaked douchebags like him, the "truth" is only that which will vindicate his heroes and justify his prejudices. Sad, really.

Reagan's Race Legacy (washingtonpost.com)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States'_rights_(speech)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eX_eTDP-CSg]YouTube - Ronald Reagan States' Rights Speech in Philadelphia, MS[/ame]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/13/opinion/13herbert.html


I could go on and on, but that would be senseless, and boring.

 

[maineman]

Absolutely. The Government has no right to tell a Private Business owner who they have to serve or hire. Now I personally don't believe in banning someone based on their race, but I think that if someone did, it would be a poor business decision. ~BH

so...just to be clear here.... you believe that, if you own a lunch counter, you have the right to refuse to serve anyone whose skin is not white?

Once again, you mean to tell us that YOU DON'T believe in the right to freedom of association?

I believe that if someone opens up a business that serves lunches to folks, they have to serve lunches to ALL the folks, even those darkies that they don't like... and the supreme court agrees with me. suck that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's easy for idiots like Maineman to criticize immigration laws because they don't live on the southern border and don't have near the burden that southern states have in regards to illegal aliens. Folks like Maineman need to wise up or shut up.

I fully support immigration reform. I do not support breaking any laws.

I do wonder, however, about people all over our country who want to send everyone here illegally back south of the border and not offer them a path to citizenship or at least to legal immigrant status.

I wonder about people who think those who flout our law at will are anyone's idea of good citizenship prospects, or that they should be REWARDED for that flouting by letting them line-jump.

But I guess that's easy for YOU to believe, since you don't have to deal with them, right?

If those proponents of that solution were to prevail, I doubt that America's agricultural industry, its restaurant industry, hospitality industry, construction industry, to name a few, would survive without the cheap labor those industries have become addicted to.

Really? But I'll bet a dollar that you're a big proponent of things like unionization and minimum "living" wages and such for OTHER industries, right? You just somehow believe that . . . what? Agriculture, food, hospitality, and construction are such undesirable jobs that no one would want them? Or is it that you think those who run those businesses are so hopelessly corrupt and greedy that they can't function without virtual slavery? There are no legal residents who work in those areas for reasonable wages? Clarify your position on this, if you would please.

Methinks that when the average American citizen had to take out a mortgage to buy a head of lettuce, when it became expected practice for hotels to wash their sheets once a month whether they needed it or not, and when you ate off paper plates at fine dining restaurants, they might rethink their position on immigration reform.

A mortgage to buy lettuce? Wash the sheets once a month? Paper plates? Tell me, were you born full of shit, or did you have to have a shit transplant?

 

[maineman]

Why, Because we Respect the rule of Law? ~BH

do you really respect the rule of law, or just those laws that you personally approve of?

Respecting the rule of law is not the same as respecting individuals laws, Mensa Boy.

see ya next tuesday, sweetie.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the conversation moved far afield... it happens. I was responding to your post.. and particularly the bolded sentence. Can you answer my question, please: do you believe that, if you owned a lunch dounter, that you would have the right to refuse to serve someon based upon the color of their skin? yes or no

Nope. The conversation didn't "move far afield". YOU moved it on page 1, in post numbers 10 and 13.... a deflection from Stephanie's topic, and this after a couple of pointless attacks on her.

There are no rules at USMB about tangential discussion that I'm aware of... but don't act like you didn't deflect from the thread subject in order to introduce more leftist race-baiting. It's not credible.

race baiting? not my intent, for certain. I do think that the GOP is between a rock and a hard place here. What with Rand Paul and the Arizona law, the republicans are at risk of losing the black and latino vote entirely.

Yes, because brown people are incapable of seeing and thinking past skin color, right?

The only thing sadder than your revolting racism is how blind you are to it.

 

[Cecilie1200]

so...do you agree with Rand Paul where he said that business owners had the right to decide who they did business with?

Absolutely. The Government has no right to tell a Private Business owner who they have to serve or hire. Now I personally don't believe in banning someone based on their race, but I think that if someone did, it would be a poor business decision. ~BH

This is kind of off topic, but that is going to the extreme. I thank my lucky stars that private businesses can't discriminate and you should also!

I don't have to thank God that the government is around to impose morality on the stupid, immoral masses, because I have faith that the people in any community where a business operated like that would put it out of business on their own.

 

[Cecilie1200]

race baiting? not my intent, for certain. I do think that the GOP is between a rock and a hard place here. What with Rand Paul and the Arizona law, the republicans are at risk of losing the black and latino vote entirely.

And that's WHY the Democrats in Congress jumped to their feet in standing ovation of Calderon's faux-concern about "racial profiling". They all KNOW that Arizona's law specifically forbids racial profiling. They're just doing their usual "divide and conquer" maneuver on us in order to round up those latino votes.

Calderone's a giant hypocrite, because Mexican immigration law not only bars foreigners from public criticism of Mexico's internal politics, it also bars foreigners if their presence is deemed to upset "the equilibrium of the national demographics". What that means... is that Mexico can deny on race. And half our Congress jumped up and applauded him.
Immigration Reform? Let's Try Mexico's Immigration Law!

say what you want, and attribute whatever motives you chose to the actions of congressional democrats, the fact of the matter is: the arizona law and rand paul's statements about the civil rights act will not help the GOP garner minority votes... which only goes to my long held view that the GOP is moving toward becoming the party of white people only.

I'm sure this is going to shock you, but legal residents of Mexican descent in Arizona are ALSO in favor of this law. You might know this if you personally knew any Mexican-Americans.

 

[Foxfyre]

Was it just a coincidence that Dr Martin Luther King was a Republican?

Maineman often has some astute observations and makes some good points. But on this issue he's pretty tunnel visioned. If a black man is supposed to be somehow so different than anybody else--an observation that automatically makes the observer racist--then no black man can get involved in politics at all because not only have both Democrats and Republicans demonstrated some racist qualities in their past, so has the so-called black community.

Where you gonna go that has a lily white pure and unsullied past?

People tend to identify with other groups of people. No man is an island. There are varying degrees and circles within circles of allegiances. In the arab world, for example, family clan and sect always trump nationality. In America, people self identify with family, with race, with religion, with political party, with socioeconomic status, with regional location. It is why all of New England rejoiced when the Red Sox won the world series in '04 even though very few of us live in Boston proper.

Black Americans identify with other black Americans. Irish Americans identify with other Irish Americans. Labor union members identify with other labor union members.

Even here you are dividing people and suggesting that none of these people so identified could possibly identify with the values or policy of somebody with a different background or who looked different from themselves. And you don't think that is a racist view? Not a malicious or mean spirited racist view, but racist just the same?

The existence of a southern strategy by the GOP is well known, and Steele even admitted as much himself at DePaul last month. I personally could NEVER work for an organization that utilized a strategy specifically designed to minimize the importance of a group of people that I self identified with. Michael Steele clearly has no such objections to doing precisely that.

It was not a coincidence that Reagan chose Philadelphia Mississippi to be his VERY FIRST campaign stop after winning the GOP nomination, and for the audience in Philadelphia that day, "state's rights" had one meaning and one meaning only, and especially to Edgar Ray Killen who was, no doubt, applauding wildly from the audience.

In response:

The Myth of ‘the Southern Strategy’
By CLAY RISEN
Published: December 10, 2006

Everyone knows that race has long played a decisive role in Southern electoral politics. From the end of Reconstruction until the beginning of the civil rights era, the story goes, the national Democratic Party made room for segregationist members — and as a result dominated the South. But in the 50s and 60s, Democrats embraced the civil rights movement, costing them the white Southern vote. Meanwhile, the Republican Party successfully wooed disaffected white racists with a “Southern strategy” that championed “states’ rights.”

It’s an easy story to believe, but this year two political scientists called it into question. In their book “The End of Southern Exceptionalism,” Richard Johnston of the University of Pennsylvania and Byron Shafer of the University of Wisconsin argue that the shift in the South from Democratic to Republican was overwhelmingly a question not of race but of economic growth. In the postwar era, they note, the South transformed itself from a backward region to an engine of the national economy, giving rise to a sizable new wealthy suburban class. This class, not surprisingly, began to vote for the party that best represented its economic interests: the G.O.P. Working-class whites, however — and here’s the surprise — even those in areas with large black populations, stayed loyal to the Democrats. (This was true until the 90s, when the nation as a whole turned rightward in Congressional voting.)
More here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html?_r=1

So you see, the Democrats have more of an ugly record on racism than does the GOP. And they have more of an ugly record now as they pit race against race in an effort to maintain political loyalites. And some of the black leadership are the worst offenders of all in all that. And a states rights platform is not the racially charged emphasis that you seem to want to believe.

So again, why should black people despise the GOP more than they do the Democrats or some of their own leadership if race issues are the only factors to be considered?

And how do you get around racism when you suggest that a black person is incapable of thought or perceptions that don't fit with what you expect a black person to be or do?

The GOP,IMHO, will always turn a blind eye to racism in the south as long as the white folks there continue to elect republicans...but will, at some point rue that strategy when the white folks demographic shrinks in relation to other ethnic groups. Arizona has put them in a bind with Hispanic voters and, as I also said earlier, for every black voter that Steele is able to bring into their fold, they will lose 10o because of the "racism at lunch counters is the lunch counter owner's business" position of Rand Paul.

I think if you would open your mind and actually do some research, you will find that the vast majority of the GOP are not the race fixated fanatics that you make them out to be and in fact have been far less so than the overall track record of the Democratic party. And you'll find that black people who have dared to step outside the stereotypes that some people wish to keep them in have been generally reviled and despised by people who WANT them to stay in those sterotypes.

God forbid that we allow somebody to just be a thnking American with values, principles, perceptions, hopes and dreams instead of having to 'act like' a proper black man or white man or Hispanic or whatever.

Sheesh.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I fully support immigration reform. I do not support breaking any laws.

I do wonder, however, about people all over our country who want to send everyone here illegally back south of the border and not offer them a path to citizenship or at least to legal immigrant status. If those proponents of that solution were to prevail, I doubt that America's agricultural industry, its restaurant industry, hospitality industry, construction industry, to name a few, would survive without the cheap labor those industries have become addicted to.

Methinks that when the average American citizen had to take out a mortgage to buy a head of lettuce, when it became expected practice for hotels to wash their sheets once a month whether they needed it or not, and when you ate off paper plates at fine dining restaurants, they might rethink their position on immigration reform.

I hear what you are saying, but those are jobs that should be going to America's youth to help them get some spending cash for HS...or for those who cannot be bothered to get a HS diploma...let such low paying work motivate them to get an education.

Wow, You do have somewhat of a brain. Must have been prior to taking todays Pills. Oh I see it's early morning, gotcha. ~BH

I love this idea that all agricultural workers are illegal immigrants. What smucking planet do these imbeciles live on?

 

[Cecilie1200]

show me where I EVER said any such thing. I'll wait, but I won't hold my breath.

That's exactly what you said when you said illegals should be given a chance at citizenship instead of being sent home.

did I ever say that they deserve MORE rights than your family members? I would give the exact same rights to ALL your family members... without exception.

No, because HER family members didn't get to jump the line and breeze on in here whenever they felt like it.