Delaration of Independence: The Signers. Just a bit of history...

I dunno about the naturalization ceremony, but I was given a choice when I enlisted, so I'm just going by experience. You do get to pick between "swear or affirm."

Just remember, when they say "do solemnly swear or affirm," don't repeat the whole line back, select one of the terms. They yelled at us in basic training because the flights that were about to graduate kept screwing it up in practice. :cool:
 
Damocles said:
I am against discrimination in every form even if it includes your particular race. You misrepresent because you work hard to legitimize your position of support for race-based legislation. Not only are you ignorant of what I support, it is deliberate.
Click to expand...

You're all words and emptiness.

The easiest solution to discrimination against white males would be to add them to the list of protected identitites, but you're opposed to that simple solution. Probably because it would work.
 
RStringfield said:
Yeah we know, it was originally known as the Declaration of Protectionism in your nAHZiarro world. They did not fight for your principles at all.
Click to expand...

They fought for economic freedom from the British East India Co. They fought against the exact same thing you support.

"By the 1760s, the East India Company's power had grown massive and worldwide. However, this rapid expansion, trying to keep ahead of the Dutch trading companies, was a mixed blessing, as the company went deep in debt to support its growth, and by 1770 found itself nearly bankrupt.

The company (East India) turned to a strategy that multinational corporations follow to this day: They lobbied for laws that would make it easy for them to put their small-business competitors out of business.

Most of the members of the British government and royalty (including the king) were stockholders in the East India Company, so it was easy to get laws passed in its interests. Among the Company's biggest and most vexing problems were American colonial entrepreneurs, who ran their own small ships to bring tea and other goods directly into America without routing them through Britain or through the Company. Between 1681 and 1773, a series of laws were passed granting the Company monopoly on tea sold in the American colonies and exempting it from tea taxes. Thus, the Company was able to lower its tea prices to undercut the prices of the local importers and the small tea houses in every town in America. But the colonists were unappreciative of their colonies being used as a profit center for the multinational corporation."

http://www.thomhartmann.com/blog/2009/04/real-boston-tea-party-was-against-wal-mart-1770s

Just like the colonists, Americans are getting pissed because your so-called conservative principals have again undercut our ability to do business.
 
AssHatZombie said:
You're all words and emptiness.

The easiest solution to discrimination against white males would be to add them to the list of protected identitites, but you're opposed to that simple solution. Probably because it would work.
Click to expand...
You speak of "inevitability" here, that you will later scorn in a different argument. What is "easier" is not always what is right.
 
Damocles said:
You speak of "inevitability" here, that you will later scorn in a different argument. What is "easier" is not always what is right.
Click to expand...




What is right is stopping the actual discrimination. your way is valueless abstract righteousness that only clouds your ability to perceive workable solutions.

Where did i speak of inevitability?
 
AssHatZombie said:
What is right is stopping the actual discrimination. your way is valueless abstract righteousness that only clouds your ability to perceive workable solutions.

Where did i speak of inevitability?
Click to expand...
What is right is getting the government to be color blind, not adding more colors to the spectrum.
 
Damocles said:
What is right is getting the government to be color blind, not adding more colors to the spectrum.
Click to expand...

If all colors are in the spectrum and all are protected, the discriminatory effect of AA polices is defacto nullified. Any solution which ends the discrimination is right. Your "more pure" solution is just your excuse to drag your feet on something that could also work. Admit, you're a hack.
 
AssHatZombie said:
If all colors are in the spectrum and all are protected, the discriminatory effect of AA polices is defacto nullified. Any solution which ends the discrimination is right. Your "more pure" solution is just your excuse to drag your feet on something that could also work. Admit, you're a hack.
Click to expand...

I dunno about Damo, but I admit you're a hack!
 
AssHatZombie said:
If all colors are in the spectrum and all are protected, the discriminatory effect of AA polices is defacto nullified. Any solution which ends the discrimination is right. Your "more pure" solution is just your excuse to drag your feet on something that could also work. Admit, you're a hack.
Click to expand...
It doesn't make it better, all it does is make it so some other "new" group that hasn't been included yet has to fight again. It's both right, and permanent, to just get the government out of the listing of groups to protect and have them start protecting all individuals like they are supposed to do.
 
Threedee said:
I refuse to lead you by the hand. Keep up or fail - a classical value of capitalism, I might add!!
Click to expand...

What we're talking about is economic slavery and how conservative principals encourage it, I think.

As far as racism vs white males, or whatever you guys are talking about, I don't know, the way I see it is there's only one color, green.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top