baby boomlet occuring in US

And as far as how the culture is under attack... That is complete horseshit. My best friend growing up was a child of mexican immigrants. My family has been in Florida for at least five generations. I was talking to his brother (the best friend died while we were teens) a while back and he has more of a southern accent than I do.

A month ago I saw a banner on a truck riding through town that read, Red Nexican (obviosuly, implying redneck mexican).

They assimilate. Your and nAHZi's culture of hate and racism WILL die (even more than it already has), but it's going to die whether we are predominantly white or not.
 
RStringfield said:
And as far as how the culture is under attack... That is complete horseshit. My best friend growing up was a child of mexican immigrants. My family has been in Florida for at least five generations. I was talking to his brother (the best friend died while we were teens) a while back and he has more of a southern accent than I do.

A month ago I saw a banner on a truck riding through town that read, Red Nexican (obviosuly, implying redneck mexican).

They assimilate. Your and nAHZi's culture of hate and racism WILL die (even more than it already has), but it's going to die whether we are predominantly white or not.
Click to expand...
True.
 
RStringfield said:
And as far as how the culture is under attack... That is complete horseshit. My best friend growing up was a child of mexican immigrants. My family has been in Florida for at least five generations. I was talking to his brother (the best friend died while we were teens) a while back and he has southern accent than I do.

A month ago I saw a banner on a truck riding through town that read, Red Nexican (obviosuly, implying redneck mexican).

They assimilate. Your and nAHZi's culture of hate and racism WILL die (even more than it already has), but it's going to die whether we are predominantly white or not.
Click to expand...

F#ck you, ignorant ass. Citizens have a right to the protections of a border and sane immigration policy, for the same reason invasions have been deemed unwanted throughout history. The resources and opportunities of a nation are for citizens first and foremost, it's what you get from the state for paying taxes and obeying laws. Anything less is a betrayal. Betrayal of the people seems to popular these days, and that's sad.
 
RStringfield said:
You are a racist/ethnocentrist because you advocate state force be used to preserve your kind.

I knew you were going to hide behind this "it's not race but culture" horseshit. But explain to me how bac's jab at southerners is any more racist? Did southerners become a race? No, like you he is somewhat hiding behind an attack on a certain culture. Frankly, his is far more narrowly focused (as I am sure he means white southern rednecks) and therefore a little less distasteful.

You are the one that used the word racism. I merely questioned how your reverse side was any less racist. I do not see how it is, even using your intellectually dishonest evasion.

There are groups of southerners with far ranging plans of domination. That does not mean all of them or even most southerners share those views. Trying to lump all muslims, illegal immigrants or southerners into one collective of like mind is akin to racism. One might more accurately call it ethnocentrism, but as mentioned you are the one that claimed racism.
Click to expand...

1. You appear to be part of the "open borders" crowd. I happen to think that borders and culture mean something. We have something called a Constitution that defines it, and millions of Americans have fought for it; many who died.

2. I've never heard of Southeners wanting to take over the country, much less the world. Perhaps you can enlighten me!
 
Southern Man said:
So by your measure desiring to keep the borders, language and culture of the US intact is racist?

In the case of illegal immigrants, a well established group of Mexicans has formal plans to take over vast areas of the US. In the case of Islam, its stated goal is to take over the world. Neither group can do so by military means, but can do so over time by several generations of birth rates far exceeding the remaining Americans.

So please explain to me now how I am racist.
Click to expand...

taking over the worlld is also Christianitys stated goal.
 
Southern Man said:
Valid point. However this has never been done by force.
Click to expand...

Um...are you serious? Christianity is just older than Islam and so a little bit past the whole "take over the world" thing...however, there are still crazy fundies that believe in that shit, and THE CRUSADES were pretty forceful.
 
gonzojournals said:
Um...are you serious? Christianity is just older than Islam and so a little bit past the whole "take over the world" thing...however, there are still crazy fundies that believe in that shit, and THE CRUSADES were pretty forceful.
Click to expand...

watch that um thing there is will get you flagged as a ged type.
 
Southern Man said:
1. You appear to be part of the "open borders" crowd.
Click to expand...

Ad hom, red herring and non responsive. Whether I support open borders or not has nothing to do with your racism/ethnocentrism and how you exposed yourself by charging bac as a racist. You are trying to evade and fail to respond at all, cause you got your ass kicked and you know it.

Okay, I will let you off and follow your diversions.

I happen to think that borders and culture mean something. We have something called a Constitution that defines it, and millions of Americans have fought for it; many who died.
Click to expand...

The constitution defines what? It certainly was never intended to define culture. That's ridiculous.

Where in the Constitution does it empower the federal government to control immigration?

Many immigrants and native born citizens have fought for what is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and the listed grievances in the document that brought our initial war of independence, i.e., the D of I.

Which one of our wars was fought over immigration? Our first two were largely about immigration, but we fought in support of it.

2. I've never heard of Southeners wanting to take over the country, much less the world. Perhaps you can enlighten me!
Click to expand...

You must be joking.

http://www.splcenter.org
 
Southern Man said:
The crusades were battles to DEFEND Christian lands from attacks from invading muslims.
Click to expand...

If that were true, then the Crusades would have focused their efforts in Spain and would not have sacked Constantinople, significantly weakening the Byzantine Empire and allowing for centuries of warfare against the Ottomans in Eastern Europe.

Instead, they left their own countries and fought in Muslim territory for Jerusalem...the same misguided "Israel" bullshit that has us in hot water even today.
 
RStringfield said:
[1]Ad hom, red herring and non responsive. Whether I support open borders or not has nothing to do with your racism/ethnocentrism and how you exposed yourself by charging bac as a racist. You are trying to evade and fail to respond at all, cause you got your ass kicked and you know it.

Okay, I will let you off and follow your diversions.



[2]The constitution defines what? It certainly was never intended to define culture. That's ridiculous.

[3]Where in the Constitution does it empower the federal government to control immigration?

[4]Many immigrants and native born citizens have fought for what is inscribed on the Statue of Liberty and the listed grievances in the document that brought our initial war of independence, i.e., the D of I.

[5]Which one of our wars was fought over immigration? Our first two were largely about immigration, but we fought in support of it.



You must be joking.

http://www.splcenter.org
Click to expand...

1. Argumentum ad hominem has been your tactic from the star, and as I see, is continuing.
2. The Constitution defines our nation and directs the government to defend the people from invasion.
3. Illegal immigration is an invasion.
4. Correction: Legal immigrants.
5. Red herring.
 
gonzojournals said:
If that were true, then the Crusades would have focused their efforts in Spain and would not have sacked Constantinople, significantly weakening the Byzantine Empire and allowing for centuries of warfare against the Ottomans in Eastern Europe.

Instead, they left their own countries and fought in Muslim territory for Jerusalem...the same misguided "Israel" bullshit that has us in hot water even today.
Click to expand...

Islam took over Jerusalem on its way to Europe. When you have the enemy on the run then run him as far as you can.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top