The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
rms
Active Member
I think Bernie meant support for Bosnians as well, since that was during Clinton's presidency.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dak
mentat
Why should a store be held responsible for what a customer decides to do with the product? Lets sue every car dealer and booze seller who sells to a drunk driver. This grasping for someone or something to "blame" other than the perp is something that needs to be nipped.
TechnicalBarbarity
Poser Disposer
All in all yesterdays debate was pretty laughable. Bernie was the clear "winner", if we can even use that word. My favorite part was watching hillary constantly embarrass herself by either answering questions like she was reading them off of cue cards or by flip flopping on most issued harder than fish out of water. My favorite part was her ridiculous/phoned in response to the "Americas greatest threat" question. Tbh they all shit the bed when asked that question. Bernie too. "Nuclear material" and "earth will not be habitable for our kids and our grandchildren". 
My favorite out of the bunch would have to be O'Malley. But someone like him is just not going to get the support from most of the rabid progressives of today.
My favorite out of the bunch would have to be O'Malley. But someone like him is just not going to get the support from most of the rabid progressives of today.
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Thats what your slate article suggests, and the other dems in favor of. Seems incredibly weird to have that precedent for gun companies. Are there any other industries where this law occurs?
Are you in the no-response following 9/11 camp?
Dak
mentat
Yeah I'm sure those fops are in favor of it. I assume liability legislation like that is supposed to be akin to allowing the suit of companies who put out dangerous products (like the Pinto), which even when used as directed is dangerous to the consumer and/or others. This is a stupid equivocation though even on the face of it when applied to victims of illegal activities suing tool manufacturers. The only acceptable parallel is if poor design of a gun made it likely to blow up in my face or the slide to come off during recoil, when used as directed.
Taking the official story of what occurred on 9/11 at face value, the only country which had any actual tie to what occurred was Saudi Arabia. The House of Saud, or the Bin Laden family, or any other half dozen targets could have been pursued. Instead, we dicked around in the middle of nowhere for a decade+ with nothing to show for it.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Please. The writers at Slate know that what Bernie was referring to was the fact that urban communities lean more towards gun-control, whereas rural communities are more often against it. Hence, because of the fact that rural communities have a loud voice in Congress, the only way that gun-control can be instituted at the federal level is to reach a compromise that caters to rural beliefs concerning guns. Bernie said nothing about urban areas needing gun control more than rural areas--that was fabricated by the Slate reporter.
If anything said during the debate was accidentally racist, it was this comment by Cooper.
rms
Active Member
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
It's a notion that's been spun around in the right whenever this topic gets brought up. The arguments I've heard state, essentially, that European nations can successfully implement socialist policies because they are culturally and ethnically homogeneous nations (i.e., qualitative population factors). The US, however, is not, and therefore such policies would fail. Population, quantitatively, is also thrown into question, but, considering the fact that US GNP per capita exceeds that of most European nations (Denmark, for example), I don't consider it to be a solid foundation for arguing against the potential efficacy of socialist policies in America.
rms
Active Member
I don't see how any of what you said could go under racism, it's the real complications of adopting poor brown people from across the globe. Isn't this exactly what is happening in Sweden? The Swedish government allowed X amount of refugees and now they are being victimized as "takers" and "leeching" off the welfare of the state and now there is unrest?
I agree with the theory of a white homogenous nations capabilities vs. one that is not, and it's often my argument against people who say "We should be like Denmark." I think Dak would agree. GNP argument loses weight when we discuss the global impact the U.S. has vs. the impact that Denmark has on the world, ie military.
So I would need to see some evidence to make me think that theory is incorrect, because it makes sense in my head.
I agree with the theory of a white homogenous nations capabilities vs. one that is not, and it's often my argument against people who say "We should be like Denmark." I think Dak would agree. GNP argument loses weight when we discuss the global impact the U.S. has vs. the impact that Denmark has on the world, ie military.
So I would need to see some evidence to make me think that theory is incorrect, because it makes sense in my head.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
How does it not "go under racism" based on what you just said? I'm not going to bother pulling your sentences apart to illustrate this point, it should be obvious. One dimension of the problem that you brought up, that of the refugees being poor, is important. But I don't think this holds up when you consider the economic, educational, and social rise of recent Indian, Asian, and African immigrants (among others). Most of them came to this country poor and became self-sufficient. Most of the first-generation immigrant pharmacists that I've worked with came to this country with very little and are now educated, hard-working individuals who contribute to our tax base. You could say they're exceptions, but many of their friends who were unable to get an education became business owners. Of course, I understand this is anecdotal, but it supports my point against yours that poor browns (emphasis on brown) can't contribute economically (which I would hope is just a miscommunication on your part). I can't think of any studies off the top of my head, but I would be surprised if it hasn't been researched. Anecdotally, again, I've heard from professors of mine that have studied immigration that first-generation immigrants contribute more than they take.
rms
Active Member
How many white countries were colonized?
How many brown countries were?
It's not racist to understand the historical significance colonization had on non-white people.
No one said brown people can't contribute. No one is saying that immigrants take more than give back. Are you going to deny the spending it requires to assimilate and best ensure equality of immigrants? And if you had to make a claim on who would be a "cheaper" immigrant in either the United States or Denmark, would you say a white immigrant or a brown immigrant?
How many brown countries were?
It's not racist to understand the historical significance colonization had on non-white people.
No one said brown people can't contribute. No one is saying that immigrants take more than give back. Are you going to deny the spending it requires to assimilate and best ensure equality of immigrants? And if you had to make a claim on who would be a "cheaper" immigrant in either the United States or Denmark, would you say a white immigrant or a brown immigrant?
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Ok, this is a fair point coming from anyone unfamiliar with the reasons Europeans conquered the world, rather than the vice-versa. It's more than I could explain here, but I can assure you it has nothing to do with any specific qualities of the different races. I'd recommend you pick up Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. It doesn't settle the question entirely, of course, but Diamond does a very good job with explaining the agricultural, technological, and economic reasons behind why Europeans conquered the world. Paul Kennedy's The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers delves into, lightly at least, the political reasons why China didn't take over the world. As for ideology as a motivating factor, or at least an abetting one, Christianity played a role in this (created in God's image, inheritors of the earth, and so forth). At least flip through Guns, Germs, and Steel, Diamond's evidence is very convincing.
Perhaps, but it is mislead in the sense that you posit it.
Assimilating first-generation immigrants isn't the problem. First-generation immigrants are rarely fully assimilated and many barely learn English. This has been the case historically and it's never ultimately become a legitimate issue (just a superficial ones that xenophobes railed against, also historically). The real issue is assimilating second-generation immigrants. If you marginalize their communities, as Europeans did first to the Turks and now the Arabs and North Africans, then the second-generation is without a country, neither from the one they were born in or from whence their parents came. That is the issue with European immigration--they cannot assimilate their children of immigrants. America has not had this same issue (though it's worth pointing out that African-Americans never fully assimilated, but it has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with their historical experience in America) because of the way our cultural identity was constructed over time. I really am surprised you've never come across this in your studies. Europe has historically been a net exporter of emigrants, which plays into their current problems.
To answer your question, I say I don't care. If they have money in their pocket when they arrive on our shores, then that's certainly an advantage to them. But anyone who emigrates from thousands of miles away is coming here, at least initially, with the intent to build a life for themselves, i.e., one that is self-sufficient. Race has nothing to do with their ability to succeed, other than barriers set up by others to obstruct their path on account of their race.
Dak
mentat
That is both entirely true and also entirely irrelevant to the point. I know you don't get that and that it's thoughtcrime to get it.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
Dak
mentat
The point about different policies not working for different people at different times and in different places, and that immigrants can be a problem. I didn't make that point myself, but you were responding to those issues and that statement of yours that I quoted is beside those points.
viewerfromnihil
Vein-Marbled Tower
There's nothing thought-crime-ish about think that opinion. I do, however, disagree with it. The debate is important and there are arguments against immigration that I think are reasonable depending on the context, but arguing that "poor brown" people are bad immigrants is missing the point. It's a reactionary opinion that usually is fed, in part, by xenophobia and/or racism, whether the individual arguing this realizes it or not.
rms
Active Member
This has nothing to do with racial superiority or that Europeans are inherently better, you are assuming this stance onto me. I do not claim that Europeans(whites) are more superior than any other race, but its' clear that one race (ie skin color) dominates the global power structure. And there is a reason behind this (colonization).
This has nothing to do with my point. I did not classify which generation of immigrants need more federal aid than the others, I am simply arguing that one race (skin color) will have an easier time assimilating in Western countries (including USA and Canada). I know well the problems with European immigration and why all those countries are having strong internal debate and backlash towards brown people. To what levels Europe emmigrates or immigrates is irrelevant, the focal point is : Assuming that all countries are alike (Denmark and USA) in their implementation of social programs is folly and, I argue, incorrect. To this day, Denmark's experience is social programs/welfare is entirely different than that of the United States.
Of course you don't care, you've moved this discussion to think I am arguing that whites are historically superior to all other races and some other crap. This is not what I am arguing nor the discussion. Race, biologically, does not have anything to do with it. It is impossible to deny that white people come from, on average (apparently this needs to be stated), better financial backgrounds and countries than brown people. And even if this is disputed, just being white makes their assimilation much, much easier than those of other skin colors. People of all ethnicities/races are xenophobes.
Jesus christ, I know you are the only white kid at your school but quit projecting this opinion. None of my positions state this nor even attempt to argue it. There is federal spending inherent in a western country to ease transition and create equality, and on average(again!), more of that money will be spent on assimilating brown people than whites.
Similar threads
