Summations Only

So you are suggesting that if the brown populations aren’t controlled, Whites will be treated the same way they treated the Iroquois?

quote:

---

Humans have lived in the americas for only a blink of an eye compared to elsewhere on the globe. Even the "native americans" came here only a few thousand years ago.

---

That should be tens of thousands of years ago.

quote:

---

What we (the Iroquois and everyone else) have learned from these waves is that it is important to let in people like Enrico Fermi and not Carlo Ponzi, Carl Schurz and not Johann Breyer, Anthony Quinn and not Carlos Zuniga-Aviles, Antonio de Montesinos and not Francisco Pizarro.

---

Since you can’t tell what they are like from their ethnic background - and because immigration is only part of the issue this doesn’t seem very relevant.Again, the issue is controlling the population of disfavoured ethnic groups - including those who are citizens. I don’t believe that is defensible.

quote:

---

I'm thinking one or two more posts before you become another example of Godwin's Law.

---

Hardly. Try paying attention to the topic. Immigration is a diversion. Ingraham could have restricted herself to immigration - and in Fox News that would probably have gone down well with the audience. She didn’t.

I don’t think that Godwin’s law says anything about sticking to the topic.

That’s funny, because that is what Ingraham was arguing for. It’s the topic. I’m saying that makes her a racist. If you want to go further that’s up to you.

The racist who tells a coloured person to “go back where they came from”, only to be told that their target was born in the country - was a joke when I was young.Donald Trump is that joke. And worse than that joke since the congresswomen he referred to are prominent enough that their origins are easily found. We may laugh at the idea of a dumb racist not realising that not all coloured people are immigrants, but when the President of the United States makes the same mistake it’s worrying.(Those unfamiliar with the incident can see the tweets reproduced in Message 3049)

That says a lot more about you than it does about the Democratic Party.

Oh look the usual bigotry. Well, it’s certainly on topic.Even the Left of the Democratic Party are hardly Communists. They are not even hard Left by European standards.Also, I hardly think that a Muslim so liberal that she sometimes calls Allah She is the sort of fundamentalist that attacked the U.S. In fact those Muslims aren’t likely to approve of female politicians at all.

It says to me that you are a nutty partisan who will take guilt by association to ridiculous levels. It doesn’t say that you are a raving bigot who wants a far right tyranny - although Faith thinks it does.

quote:

---

Guilt by association? Where do you get that?

---

Trying to link liberal Muslims with 9/11, a Puerto Rican for the Alamo and a Massachusetts socialist with Stalin.Nutty, but I guess there’s no sane defence of Trump.

quote:

---

Socialism can cause problems

---

Maybe. But it can help solve them too.

quote:

---

Stalin is a good reminder

---

Certainly not. I’d describe it as an idiotic smear.

quote:

---

(Hitler, too, and his National Socialists).

---

I’d say don’t be silly but it’s a little late for that.

quote:

---

Are you going to say Stalin wasn't a Socialist?

---

He certainly didn’t have much in common with a modern Massachusetts socialist.

quote:

---

The "Conquistador" reference was to remind all those "liberals" who complain about white imperialists that the people south of the Rio Grande are descended from Conquistadores (or their slaves, either subjugated natives or those brought over from Africa).

---

And because you think that Cortez and Pizarro fought at the Alamo ?
I don’t really think I’d describe a Caribbean island as South of the Rio Grande either. I don’t think that liberals object to people because they are descended from African slaves either.

quote:

---

As for liberal Muslims, as far as I know, liberals aren't supposed to apologize for "insinuating that American support for Israel is fueled by money from a pro-Israel lobbying group" or say "It's all about the Benjamin's baby!" when complaining about the Jewish lobby. So maybe they're just "muslims" without the "liberal" qualifier.

---

Let us note that there’s nothing there linking anyone to the 9/11 attack, carried out by extremists, mostly from Wahabbi Saudi Arabia. I also think that it is entirely legitimate to criticise the Israel lobby and Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians - and that such criticisms are not inherently anti-semitic.

quote:

---

That may or may not be the case in Europe, but The Squad is far left even to the Democratic Party and sowing division within the party wherever they go. They can't stop making pot shots against Nancy Pelosi, a politician long considered so far to the left its fallen off the page

---

Obviously she isn’t. I’ve never seen anything that I’d call far Left associated with her. Indeed, she seems to be associated with the establishment Democrats who are centre-Right.

quote:

---

And she speaks to an era where liberal indoctrination on college campuses was inevitably going to lead.

---

So which is it? Is she so horribly liberal that she’d be on Al Quaida’s death list or should she be tarred with 9/11? It doesn’t make sense to say both.

quote:

---

I didn’t mention anything about Al Qaeda nor did I make any insinuations about it. What are you talking about?

---

The reason why I pointed out that Rashida Tlaib is an extremely liberal Muslim. Sarah Bellum and Faith were trying to link her to the 9/11 attacks.

Because you replied to the message where I raised the point even quoting relevant text. If you join a conversation the preceding posts don’t just go away.

quote:

---

I'm not Sarah... I'm not Faith... I have my own mind and my own beliefs

---

I didn’t say that you were. But if you are going to reply to a point you might as well actually address it.