Obama

http://str8talk.wordpress.com/2008/...yment-of-black-workers-by-vernon-m-briggs-jr/

According to the civil rights commission. The Black labor forced is being hurt the most by illegal immigration. This report does not address the fact that the population as a whole is also hurt by the high cost of free social services paid to illegals.

Added: This is particularly interesting considering Obama's statement included reference to anti-immigration. Of course we have to assume he meant anti-illegal. I am sure he doesn't think Pennsylvanians are anti-immigrant. Anyway, since he gets a large Black vote this is an interesting report.

Given the inordinately high unemployment rates for low skilled black workers (the highest for all racial and ethnic groups for whom data is collected), it is obvious that the major looser in this competition are low skilled black workers.
Click to expand...

The continued reluctance by our national government to get illegal immigrants out of the labor force– and to keep them out–by enforcing the existing sanctions at the work site against employers of illegal immigrants is itself a massive violation of the civil rights of all low skilled workers in the United States and of low skilled black American workers in particular. Illegal immigrants have no right to work in the United States. In fact, they have no right to even be in the country. Enforcing our nation’s labor laws – including the protection of the legal labor force from the presence of illegal immigrant workers – is the civil rights issue of this generation of American workers.
Click to expand...


Who is next? Blacks? Jews? Liberals?
Click to expand...

JB Books, It works best to deal with facts instead of emotionaly charged fear-mongering statements.
 
Last edited:
Quote:
The only thing the left knows well is stealing and killing.

I doubt you can support that histrionic screech factually.
Click to expand...

Examples of the stealing is nationalization of property. Recall that Hillary tried to nationalize the health care industry. Roughly 30% of the US economy in one fell swoop. Just because the government is doing it does not mean it is not stealing. Just a few other very recent examples among many:

Hugo Chavez seizes sugar plantations
Click to expand...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-nationalize11apr11,0,6461992.story

Chavez nationalizes Argentine Steel Company
Click to expand...

http://www.elcomercioperu.com.pe/edicionimpresa/Html/2008-04-10/chavez-nacionaliza-empresa-siderurgica-argentina.html

The killing includes about 150 million killed by their own leftist governments in just the last century. I believe the number killed by their own leftist governments is more than killed in all wars during the same period. It makes the "Peace and Justice" Marxists seem a little silly to me.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/04122008/postopinion/opedcolumnists/do_good_killers_106150.htm

DO-GOOD KILLERS
By JONAH GOLDBERG​


April 12, 2008 -- LAST week, Russia's lower house of parlament passed a resolution insisting that Josef Stalin's man-made 1932-33 famine - called the Holodomor in Ukrainian - wasn't genocide.
Not even the Russians dispute that the Soviet government deliberately starved millions. But the Russian resolution indignantly states: "There is no historical proof that the famine was organized along ethnic lines." It notes that victims included "different peoples and nationalities living largely in agricultural areas of the country."

Translation: We didn't kill millions of farmers because they were Ukrainians; we killed millions of Ukrainians because they were farmers.

And that's all it takes to be acquitted of genocide.

The United Nations defines genocide as the "intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group." Left out of this definition are "modern" political labels for people: the poor, religious people, the middle class, etc.

The oversight was deliberate. The word "genocide" was coined by a Polish Jew, Raphael Lemkin, who was responding to Winston Churchill's 1941 lament that "we are in the presence of a crime without a name." Lemkin, a champion of human rights who lost 49 relatives in the Holocaust, gave it a name a few years later. But to get the United Nations to recognize genocide as a specific crime, he made compromises.

Pressured by the Soviets, Lemkin supported excluding efforts to murder "political" groups from the 1948 UN resolution on genocide. Under the more narrow official definition, it's genocide to try to wipe out Roma (formerly known as Gypsies), but it's not necessarily genocide to liquidate, say, people without permanent addresses. You can't slaughter "Catholics," but you can wipe out "religious people" and dodge the genocide charge.

Political scientist Gerard Alexander decries that type of absurdity as "Enlightenment bias." Reviewing Samantha Power's moving 2003 book, "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide," Alexander observed that this bias leaves the greatest mass murderers of the 20th century - self-described Marxist-Leninists - somewhat off the hook........

It's a wrongheaded distinction. Murder is murder, whether the motive is bigotry or the pursuit of allegedly enlightened social planning....
Click to expand...
 
Even if you try to paint what he said in the kindest light it is still insulting.

He was speaking to people paying almost $3k a plate for dinner in San Fransisco and was talking about those poor desperate people in the rural US who have nothing left to hold onto except their religion, guns, and hate. Aww, look how nice this guy is... he is sympathizing with the little people. Lets raise taxes for the upper-middle classes to help these poor souls.

Even if you take what he said as an expression of sympathy, it is still insulting the rural people (who apparently can't help themselves) and the things they hold dear to them (minus the hate).

Many rural people are very religious... not because they are bitter or desperate.

Many rural people like guns... not because they are bitter or desperate.

Some rural people are racist... not because they are bitter or desperate (instead because they are ***holes).
 
Who is Barack Obama?

Who is Barack Obama ?
Probable U. S. presidential candidate, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii, to Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., a black Muslim from Nyangoma-Kogel, Kenya and Ann Dunham, a white atheist from Wichita, Kansas. Obama’s parents met at the University of Hawaii.
When Obama was two years old, his parents divorced. His father returned to Kenya. His mother then married Lolo Soetoro, a radical Muslim from Indonesia.. When Obama was 6 years old, the family relocated to Indonesia. Obama attended a Muslim school in Jakarta.
He also spent two years in a Catholic school..
Obama takes great care to conceal the fact that he is a Muslim. He is quick to point out that, “He was once a Muslim, but that he also attended Catholic school.”
Obama’s political handlers are attempting to make it appear that Obama’s introduction to Islam came via his father, and that this influence was temporary at best. In reality, the senior Obama returned to Kenya soon after the divorce, and never again had any direct influence over his son’s education. Lolo Soetoro, the second husband of Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, introduced his stepson to Islam. Obama was enrolled in a Wahabi school in Jakarta.
Wahabism is the radical teaching that is followed by the Muslim terrorists who are now waging Jihad against the western world.
Since it is politically expedient to be a Christian when seeking major public office in the United States, Barack Hussein Obama has joined the United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.
Let us all remain alert concerning Obama’s expected presidential candidacy. He has already tossed his hat in the ring.
Obama seems to be one of those politicians who probably have no real convictions other than that they ought to be in power. The Clintons come to mind in this regard. It’s just that socialist policies appeal to them as the way to achieve power. They are true narcissists, and as such, their only real loyalty is to themselves, not to any actual ideology and certainly not to the citizenry or the country as a whole.
My frustration and dissappointment is not so much with the likes of Obama, which is to be expected in the world of politics, but with the large number of American voters who are so easily fooled by such charlatans.
There was a time in this country’s history when the Obamas and Clintons and their ilk would have to be seriously worried about being tarred and feathered and literally run out of town by the citizens.
Today, they are practically worshipped as demi-gods by millions of naive or stupid voters.
 
Lon308 you make some very good points. I am sure it must be frustrating to feel as if you spinning your wheels in the pursuit of any criminals, and maybe more so when a certain type "plays the system."

To Madmag and Hkuser my point (emotionally charged or not) is that there seems to be an element in conservative America that absloutely despises anyone or anything different. For example, the continued emphasis on Barack HUSSIEN Obama (the implication being that he is an Arab or Muslim and therefore inherently anti_American). Likewise, the anti-illegal immigration lobby has gotten down right nasty in its zeal to "protect our borders." They have let some serious racist rhetoric filter into their arguments and it shows.

The illegal immigration problem could be easily solved with the implementation of a comprehensive guest worker program (AND NO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AMNESTY). Give these folks a legal status which allows them to work and therefore satisfy the demand by business for their labor. Make it conditioned upon several factors including maintaining health and auto insurance, paying taxes, no criminal convictions, etc. The don't have to get citizenship, just an expanding H type visa.

What bothers me about the extremes on both sides is that no one seems to give any thought to the possibility the other side may have a point or two. St. Paul said "Moderation in all things." We could use a lot more moderates and a lot fewer right and left wing extremists.
 
For example, the continued emphasis on Barack HUSSIEN Obama (the implication being that he is an Arab or Muslim and therefore inherently anti_American).
Click to expand...

JB, here is my answer to that from another thread. See #41.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=289219

I normally never address Obama's middle name issue. That's because I think it's just a waste of time and detracts from the real issues. But from my standpoint I will just say one time. I am a retired engineer and I like to think I use some logical thought. The idea of names is simple. When a child is born they have no control on their name...period. Simple logic. I know a lot of people that hate their names, but they don't change. I am not a Obama supporter. I do blame him for things he has control on like his choice of pastors, or gun views. I do not hold him at fault for any part of his name, and it makes absolutely no logical sense to do so.
Click to expand...

Questions? Stop selling us short.

The illegal immigration problem could be easily solved with the implementation of a comprehensive guest worker program (AND NO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AMNESTY).
Click to expand...

Thanks for your take, but it can also be resolved by enforcing laws against hiring illegal workers. Also, did you really miss the point of my link that the civil rights of American workers are being violated by not enforcing laws against illegals. I think civil rights violations are important.
 
Questions? Stop selling us short.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he must have had you mixed up with somebody else. You dislike Obama for all the right reasons.

Then again, he was just talking about that element in general, not suggesting that you were a part of it. It exists out in the world, and it certainly exists here.
 
Yeah, he must have had you mixed up with somebody else. You dislike Obama for all the right reasons.
Click to expand...

Agree.

Then again, he was just talking about that element in general, not suggesting that you were a part of it. It exists out in the world, and it certainly exists here.
Click to expand...

Agree. Evil exists everywhere.
 
The illegal immigration problem could be easily solved with the implementation of a comprehensive guest worker program (AND NO I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT AMNESTY). Give these folks a legal status which allows them to work and therefore satisfy the demand by business for their labor.
Click to expand...


We have a number of guest worker programs now and the desire for slave
labor will never end for in truth many companies do not want legal workers
because of the requirement to pay benefits.
 
To Everyone

I am not suggesting that because you actively oppose illegal immigration, you are a racist. I am simply saying that it seems as if the most vocal anti-illegal immigration opponents have a decidely racist tone. And, if the shoe fits....
Besides doesn't the hateful rhetoric really cheapen the arguments?

As for Obama, like most politicians, he will say or do anything to get elected. I think it is a testament to how far the US has come that an African-American has a shot at becoming president. I agree with the pundits and liberals that fact, in and of itself, is historic. As to whether I agree with Obama's platform, that is a different matter.

Finally, I realize we all come from different backgrounds, experiences, and socio-economic positions. What I feel is important, may not be important to other posters. Conversely, I may feel that what others believe to be of utmost importance, just is no big deal. However, I don't judge any of you.

Like I said earlier, moderation is a good thing. So is trying a little empathy.
 
I think the reason it sounds racist is cause mexicans don't come from canada and most canadians are just happy where they are.
 
What bothers me about the extremes on both sides is that no one seems to give any thought to the possibility the other side may have a point or two. St. Paul said "Moderation in all things." We could use a lot more moderates and a lot fewer right and left wing extremists.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the problem, isn't it? Obama is an anti-gun extremist. He's for total bans. He's an extreme leftist, hanging around with '60's radical chic bomb planters and anti-Semitic vitriol spewers. He's an extremist on race, supporting financially black nationalists like Wright, and talking dismissively about "typical white people." He's an extremist on values, suggesting that you must be "bitter" if you like guns or go to church for other than leftist political elbow rubbing. When he's caught doing any of those things he full of excuses, and blame for staffers. He's a candidate for President of the United States. Tell me why exactly he's supposed to get a free ride?

By the way, St. Paul never said that.
 
Like I said earlier, moderation is a good thing. So is trying a little empathy.
Click to expand...

Agreed, however it will accomplish nothing unless the other side will do same
and at this point I do not see this, either with the left or illegal immigration
backers. Simply it leaves little room for compassion.
 
Nobody said to give Obama a free pass. PERIOD.

And I agree, the hell with compassion and empathy. Just because your opponent is unreasonable, it makes it OK for you to be as well.

You win. I have been converted to your point of view.
 
"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.

I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it." -- Barack Obama
Click to expand...

I really don't see that his intended change will do anything but try to take stuff away from me and give it to whoever he thinks needs it.
 
And I agree, the hell with compassion and empathy. Just because your opponent is unreasonable, it makes it OK for you to be as well.

You win. I have been converted to your point of view.
Click to expand...

You're being immoderate. How is criticizing a presidential candidate for things that he has said and done being unreasonable? Compassion and empathy for who? BHO is highly paid by the public, had lots of advantages, and entered this contest quite eagerly. What exactly am I to emphasize with? His anti-gun politics. NOPE. No thank you.
 
I am simply saying that it seems as if the most vocal anti-illegal immigration opponents have a decidely racist tone.
Click to expand...
More racist than Obama's comments about gun-clingin' middle America ?
Click to expand...
Yes.

The correlation between being white and being a yokel is a lot weaker than some of the correlations I've seen drawn, here and elsewhere, regarding Mexicans and Latinos in general.
 
I guess complaining about Mexicans and Latinos coming here against the law is racist. Kind of like trying to slow down the spread of crack babies with harsh sentences is racist.

Cool, lets just pick the laws we like and ignore the rest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top