You keep posting this alleged "gotcha" stuff, where you supposedly caught me saying racist stuff, but it's so obviously taken out of context by you.
wow.
i swear you live post to post. each post exists in its own little continuity. constantly rebooting all of reality so you can make up whatever truth you want. in one post you talk about the white population and then deny you ever said it even when i quote and link you.
just wow.
The only way it ever comes across is when you
paraphrase me, in which situation you always supply the racist phrases, not me.
You're a very skilled liar, Ray.
But you're still a liar.
I've already deconstructed literally hundreds of such posts of yours. This is just more of the same.
You mean the last time you cut and pasted things I said out of context, and made wild assumptions of my alleged racism, which clearly wasn't there.
Whether looking at the Declaration, Constitution, the writings of the founding fathers, or the addresses of most of our Presidents up till the 1960s, and often beyond then, we are clearly a nation founded on Christianity and Biblical principles, particularly a contract government that mirrors the Old and New Testament contract between God and Man.
just because they had religious beliefs does not mean we're a christian nation. in fact they had enough smarts to realize that making it a christian nation would only help the kind of people like you who like to attack others for having different views.
There is considerable evidence in the Declaration and the Constitution that we
are a Christian nation. God is referenced 4 times in the Declaration of Independence, and as "in the yesr of our Lord" in the Constitution. If they did not want to include God, they just would have written the date.
Their private writings explicitly state that the Bible was essential to U.S. education in schools.
The founders' writings overwhelmingly also state the idea that it was the absence of Christian principles that caused previous attempts at Democracy to be doomed to failure from the start, and that the United States was likewise doomed to failure if it strayed from its Christian foundations. We are seeing the fracturing and fragmenting of our culture now, thanks to post-1960s liberalism, that is deliberately destroying nationalism, marriage, creating a revisionist history, and launching an all-out =assault on every last reference to Christianity, to prepare us to willingly give up our sovereignty and submit to a North American Union and globalism.
Whether one is a Christian or not, absolutely no one who is familiar with the beliefs and writings of the Constitution- and Declaration-signers would dispute for a second that the Creator/God referred to is the God of the Bible.
that's not the same as endorsing religion. if you say "god damn it" are you just turning a phrase or actively trying to get your deity to damn something to the pits of hell?
I've quoted the founders on many occasions.
As I said, they clearly intended Bible teaching in schools, and though not pushing any particular denomination of Christianity as a state religion,
clearly intended Christian principles and the Bible itself to have an essential role in our democratic government.
You can hate Christianity (which you clearly do, Ray) but you can't credibly deny who the Declaration and Constitution signers clearly gave reverence and priority to.
i don't hate christianity. i hate christians like yourself who believe others are inferior for not sharing your beliefs. christians who are secure enough in their beliefs to respect those of others are fine in my book.
No, you clearly hate Christianity, and falsely blame it for all the world's evils, as is evident in topic after topic you've started here over the last 5 years.
Remember when you said Hitler was a Christian?
I disproved that with documented statistics of Protestants, Catholics, Jehovah witneses and others who were imprisoned by the Nazis. And the well documented plans Hitler had to use a Nazified version of Christianity for a period, before completely removing Christianity from Europe entirely.
Basically, anyone who doesn't ignore what the Bible actually says, and expresses strong support for the Bible, and in the case of the U.S., anyone who wishes to preserve memory of the historic Christian foundations of our government, is labelled as "hateful" by you, for not having a flaccid and completely passive view of Christanity, and the Christian right to press for political representation of their interests and beliefs as every other political group does, working to preserve the nation's Christian heritage.
you have slipped up here and there and used the word "white." you specifically said on one thread that the problem with illegal immigration is that the white population was being overrun.
You used the word white and scripted me to make a racist statement that I would never make.
10/9/07 When the immigrant population approaches or surpasses the percentage of native-born, I find that a rather alarming ratio.....
The white population is actually declining at 100,000 per year, leaving the insanity in California for an America they recognize as the same culture they grew up in.
see, that's where you slipped up. you had stuck with "native-born population" which would include whites blacks browns yellows reds, all the colors of the rainbow. but then you made it clear, that this is about white people being in the majority. "white population." those are your words. i didn't do some liberal mind trick or change things around. that's what you said.
You omitted the part where I said that, along with the white majority that's leaving California at a rate of about 100,000 a year, I
also said
that the black middle class is leaving with them.
Because they are tired of being overwhelmed by spanish-speaking illegals, and even though Californians voted in an overwhelming 59% majority (Proposition 187) that majority-supported law was overturned, and they're forced to pay higher taxes to pay benefits for illegals who aren't even legal taxpaying citizens. So they're (whites and blacks) leaving for other states that aren't overwhelmed by illegals, that aren't overwhelmed by hispanic gangs, that don't have schools inundated by spanish-only illegal children, that don't have hospitals bankrupted and declining in care due to unpaid medical bills of illegal Mexicans.
You omitted (deceitfully) the part where I answered previously, that I listed whites as
one demographic group (being the clear pre-eminent majority of the english-speaking U.S. population), and that I also listed blacks as one of those mainstream American groups that is leaving California along with whites.
Time and again, I've said that immigrants, whether they come from Europe, Asia, Africa, or Latin America are welcome here, if they assimilate.
I don't believe that any group is racially inferior. (You, however, being a believer in Darwinian theories of evolution, as Hitler did, would eagerly embrace the idea of scientific racism).
No, I don't. And believing in evolution because there is clear scientific evidence doesn't mean I think it needs to apply to evolved sentient creatures. If I believed one race was better than another I might say:
7/5/07 By "saying it was wrong", you simply give ammunition to those who want to attack America and its history, and more broadly, attack all of Western culture. (By cultures such as Latin America, and by China, and by Arab nations, whose corruption, slavery and brutality far exceeds ours. You give ammunition to inferior cultures to undermine ours).
They don't see the subtleties, so contrary to your notions, it does undermine our entire culture, it advances their blanket condemnation of us, it rationalizes their terrorism and other backlashes at us.
That's more of your deceit, Ray.
There's a difference between an inferior
race and an inferior
culture.
The cultures in the other nations I listed are corrupt and brutal, to the point that they don't have any moral high ground to criticize the United States or Europe.
However, they are NOT
racially inferior, as you falsely imply me to say.
As I said, statistically, when immigrants from other regions of the world are given the ability to assimilate within a superior western culture, where their old culture does not overwhelm the western nation with the corruptions that existed in the nation they left, then they assimilate and become very educated and productive citizens.
That's just as true of immigrants from Europe. I know people from places like Kosovo, Croatia and Bosnia, who came here to get a way from conflicts in their home countries. But if they had huge populations in the U.S., those old vendettas might re-appear here.
I know Arabs and Jews who date here, which would be a blood offense in their native countries.
and if I thought one culture was inferior and needed to be absorbed into a superior culture in order to be deemed worthy I might say:
Second of all, I said that Native American culture was still in the Stone Age when discovered by Europeans, had not even advanced to invention of the wheel when they first met Europeans.
I said that they were culturally inferior, *not* racially inferior. And that they've advanced greatly since through assimilation, and their descendants (myself included) enjoy a much better standard of living through assimilation with European colonists.
But that would be a dickhead thing to say. I mean what kind of asshole says that a people who were living lives of their choosing needed to be slaughtered and assimilated into another culture in order to be worthy of life.
Someone who sees that, yes, native americans
were living in the Stone Age[/b] prior to contact with Europeans,
were engaged in bloody tribal warfare, near starvation, involved frequently in cannibalism and human sacrifice?
These are facts, which you are clearly in denial about, in your eagerness to demonize your own nation and people falsely.
But as I've said many times, and you continue to slander me as if I didn't, some nationalities (by the barometer-demographics of crime, prison population, drug arrests, gang activity, welfare use, and high-school dropout rates) don't assimilate as well as others for cultural reasons, not because of racial inferiority, as you slanderously allege.
Then you're saying America is culturally inferior to Europe because we have poorer health, more crime, gun violence, drug use, etc?
wow, I may have issues with our country but I don't think we're inferior. Why do you hate America?
Arguably we have a
better health care system than Europe or Canada, because their government-run healthcare systems are inefficienct and very high priced, and their care is rationed, to the point that the wealthier citizens of these nations come to the United States and pay out-of-pocket for their care to get medical care in a timely manner, when needed.
The advantage of their nationalized/rationed health care systems of Canada and Europe are their proximity to the United States, where they can bypass their own beaurocratic rationed-care systemsfor immediate care in the United States, if needed.
Holland (with legalized drugs) has roughly triple the number of drug addicts as the United States. The example of Holland and other European nations is the argument for the U.S. *NOT* legalizing drugs.
The rise in crime in the U.S. coincides perfectly with the escalation of immigration, both legal and illegal. More illiterates, more crime.
Hispanics from Mexico and other Caribbean/Central American countries don't assimilate as well as immigrants from China, India, South Korea, the Phillipines, South America and Europe.
Annual statistics gathered every year since 1965 manifest that.
why the need to assimilate? If they don't then it limits the jobs they can get and the interactions they can have. Ultimately it only hurts them. If they did make Spanish the second official language like you fear then they would have to make English the official one. Right now we have no official language, so that would cement English. Also people who are bilingual have healthier brains and it can even delay the onset of alzheimers. If Reagan worked on his language skills instead of his fear mongering skills his final years might have been better.
No. Despite your liberal-partisan false assumptions, it
does hurt us when aliens don't assimilate.
It costs money to arrest and jail them for crimes they commit.
It costs money to pay for the births and education of their children, when they show up at our hospitals and schools and get free services they don't pay taxes for.
It costs money for their welfare, when illegal women come into the U.S. and give birth to "anchor babies", exploiting a legal loophole that gives the entire extended family access to welfare benefits.
It costs money for the drug trafficking and gang activity they engage in, and the crime, violence, and insurance losses to private citizens and businesses that results in.
Your assumptions about Spanish as a second language are totally false.
Adopting spanish as a second U.S. language would be one step closer to a Quebec-like separatist "Aztlan", not one step closer to a more unified U.S.
I advocate taking more immigrants from the nations that tend not to give us more criminals, more high-school dropouts, more welfare parasites, etc., and less immigration from the nations that don't statistically assimilate as well.
racial profiling, huh? so some peoples are superior to others and better people in your mind? I bet your list of good nations is mostly white and your bad nations are mostly darker skinned. but no, you're not prejudiced or racist, you just think some people are superior to others.
As I said in the porevious topic (and you selectively omitted here), my list includes Korea, Japan, The Phillipines, China, Africa, Europe and South America. Pretty much every group of nations except Mexico, the Caribbean and Central America.
Another one of your slanderous assumptions shot to hell by the truth, Ray.
You will note that except for Europe, the others I list are not white.
Again: It's not about race, it's about ability to assimilate.
you do realize that Europe is where white people come from. so you're really saying that all whites are good and you like some darker skinned people too.
As I said answering your previous slander above (an answer you again selectively omitted), I pretty much include every racial group as potentially good U.S. citizens, distancing only Mexico, Central America and the Caribbean being the lowest statistical performers.
But in many other topics, I've acknowledged that there are productive citizens from these regions too, just that they should be allowed entry more selectively, since they statistically have more non-performers.
You constantly bring up white race and put the words in my mouth. I have not. The only exception is when I've compared black and white crime stistics, or similar racial demographic comparisons.
it's funny because i already showed where you did talk about the white population.
Wow, what incredible distortion on your part, Ray.
I only used the word "white" to mention demographics of how white Americans,
along with middle-class black Americans, are leaving California because of their distaste for rampant Mexican immigration in California, to the point that their state now feels more like Mexico than the United States.
That they are tired of paying higher taxes to pay for a wide range of welfare and social benefits for illegals who don't even pay taxes.
That is addressing a social problem, that you have slandered me-- yet again!!-- to have made racial remarks, when in truth I just addressed a social and national sovereignty issue.
Our nation has a 200 year history as an english-speaking culture, and I've firsthand seen immigrants of many races assimilate to our culture. My family doctor is from India (and a Carl Barks fan!).
your doc is "one of the good ones" huh? He doesn't shove any pesky indian things in your face as if he had a right to his own life. good for him!
How very racist of you, Ray.
Again: your racism, not mine.
I met a female dentist recently who is a second-generation Korean American.
a female, huh? bet you didn't like that because:
But when women demanded the same wages as men, that resulted in lowering wages for men, to the point that men could not be the sole wage-earner. Feminism also caused an increase in divorce and single-parent families.
My regular dentist is a man, and his wife and business associate is also a dentist. When she had children, she dropped to part-time work so she could be a mother to her children.
As I said, a lot of conservative women have home-based businesses and other work that allows them to have a career but still have children and be good mothers to their children.
As opposed to career women who put a priority on their careers and hire strangers to take care of their children. It is not women I "hate" (as you falsely allege).
It is radical feminist ideals that make women have a contempt for being stay-at-home moms, avoid raising their own children in selfish pursuit of career and materialism, or often makes women avoid even having children AT ALL.
As I said, there's something deeply sick about a society that chooses not to have children at even replacement levels. And that no western nation is reproducing at population-replacement levels is a result of liberal-indoctrinated ideas of "overpopulation" and radical feminism.
The rest of the world is reproducing at the same rate they were in 1960, while the U.S., Canada, Europe, Russia, and Japan are now dying. That is the fruit of liberalism and its environmentalist and radical feminist branches.
And I like how you boil her down to her race and gender.
interestingly you said he in the proper context of discusing the indian doctor, but had no real reason to say "female." it's like you find some novelty in it.
Again, YOUR hateful racist assumptions, NOT mine. I mentioned "female" simply because, quite frankly, I thought she was beautiful and a prospective girlfriend.
Another Korean friend and former co-worker is a stockbroker.
One of my most pleasant early work experiences was working in a Chinese restaurant for 2 and a half years. I'm still in contact with them, almost 30 years later, long since they closed their restaurant and opened another business.
A Cuban friend I've known for 20-plus years who works as a convention promoter.
My friend from Argentina I mentioned previously.
All of these people, and many other foreign-born friends and co-workers I've known over the years, have a pride in this country and have fully assimilated. They aren't pushing for Spanish or any other language as a second U.S. national language. They all worked hard to learn it, and assimilated.
30 years? 20 years? I don't think I ever really considered your age but it makes sense. You do seem like a crotchety old man.
As I've said repeatedly, I'm 44. I don't consider that particularly old. And I've dated women as young as 23 in the last 2 years. So obviously women don't find me unattractively old either. One was my 23-year-old office co-worker's best friend. She set me up on a blind date with her best friend, and it went quite well. Although generally I prefer women within 10 years of my own age.
And given the time frame and your bitching issues I have to wonder if maybe the love of your life wanted to pursue her own interests instead of become your housewife. Or maybe some black guy beat you out for a job and it was easier to blame liberalism than your own inferior nature (i do believe individuals can be inferior, especially idiots like yourself).
More of your trollish assumptions, based on absolutely nothing. I have several degrees and a glowing resume. One employer told me that when he checked my references, he was impresed by how favorable the opinions of my former employers were.
My Phillipine girlfriend actually wanted to be a housewife (I described her once to a friend of mine as an asian Donna Reed), but she was in a hurry to get married, and my timetable was about a year further out than hers. She worked as a cook and housekeeper for a wealthy family, but who treated her badly (low pay, long hours) as an employee, and so after 8 years there, she was eager to leave. She temporarily moved to Virginia for two months, then met some guy when she got back to Florida and married him within weeks of meeting him. In my conversations with her since, she clearly is unhappy in the marriage and regrets it. She says they argue a lot. I care about her deeply, and she feels the same way, which is why despite my feelings for her I don't keep in contact. I wouldn't want to be responsible for breaking up her marriage.
