I think he could be both white and hispanic/latino.

I know darker skinned white people from latin america and southern europe who are darker than Zimmerman.

Now that he's in a bind, his pop wants to claim he's hispanic. It's like some white people I know claiming they're 1/4 indian, when they pass as white 100% of the time.

>> ^legacy0100:

>> ^longde:
Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was white. Yeah, anyone can be racist, but the dynamics in this case aren't colorblind. Zimmerman's racial status in his own eyes and in the eyes of the local police had no small role in his actions and the (lack of) police response.

Eh..... I dunno dude. Could you define what you would consider as 'White'? Because for me, this dude would be considered Latino. Their skin may be 'light', but they ain't white.


In the US census, hispanic is considered an ethnicity, not a race. You can be a black hispanic, a white hispanic, or an american indian hispanic.

>> ^longde:

Doesn't change the fact that Zimmerman was white. Yeah, anyone can be racist, but the dynamics in this case aren't colorblind. Zimmerman's racial status in his own eyes and in the eyes of the local police had no small role in his actions and the (lack of) police response.


Eh..... I dunno dude. Could you define what you would consider as 'White'? Because for me, this dude would be considered Latino. Their skin may be 'light', but they ain't white.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Would You Longde support a company if you could NOT eat lunch with your: Gay, Black, Norwegian, Blind, Tourettes, Pregnant, Pastafarian friends there?

I'll let longde respond on his own to your full post, but I see this one a lot. What exactly is the overall point you're trying to get across? Are you saying that you think no such business would ever come into existence or persist?

I think if it were legal, you'd see all manner of anti-gay, anti-black, anti-latino, and anti-muslim businesses pop up, and persist. After all, a certain segment of the population would be willing to pay a premium to know they're supporting a bigoted operation.

Furthermore, once those places pop up, suppose a gay person goes into a "no gays allowed" store. What then? If the gay person won't leave, and shop owner calls the police, are they obligated to arrest the gay person for trespassing?

How is that world "more free" than the one we live in now?

>> ^longde:

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist.

I find it rather fascinating how shy people have gotten about using the word racist.

What does one have to say or do these days to "be a racist?"

Does one have to be a full-on white supremacist?

IMO, a "callous, almost criminal disregard for latino constituents" is what racism is usually about. You don't have to go that last mile and actively hate minorities to be a racist; treating minorities like they're not real human beings is good enough to qualify you for the label.

It only makes it worse if someone's response to being told that what they said was insensitive is to launch into a tirade about how oppressed they are by the PC police. It makes me think they're mostly pissed off that they bit back the racial slurs they wanted to use in the first place, and still got crap anyways.

Add in the fuller context (he's being interviewed about the police being investigated for using racial profiling!) and it's hard for me not to call him much worse than "racist."

I'd be horrified if I ever said something like what this guy did, and would get very contrite very quickly in response to the "don't you think that's insensitive?" question, especially in a situation like that.

I agree the guy isn't racist. He just has a callous, almost criminal disregard for his latino constituents. I don't know how that's better than him being a racist. Either way, it sucks to be latino in that town.

The reporter gave him several chances to highlight what he was doing for that local community, and all he could sputter were "tacos" or some half-thought-out platitudes about keeping everyone safe. I doubt he even reaches out to his latino constituents, let alone have his finger on the pulse of tolerance in his town.

BTW, I haven't heard anyone in that town or state accuse this guy of being a racist. His remarks have been soundly condemned, but people seem to take him as a buffoon, not a snarling racist.

Yeah, I actually figured that but Speedy's an easy target for people with no sense of humour- I'm sure this Mayor fits that category.

In reply to this comment by ulysses1904:
Not sure if you misunderstood me, as I wasn't knocking or "censoring" Speedy Gonzalez. FWIW, the Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s are the quality standard that I compare all over animations to. And no doubt some of them have blatantly racist or ethnically insulting scenes and characters, which were viewed as acceptable back then.

My comment was that it would fit right in with the mayor's taco remark, to act like being a fan of Speedy Gonzalez would help build bridges to the modern day Latino community in East Haven.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Wow....just....wow. I live near New Haven and have read about this quote but this is the first I'm seeing the footage. At least he didn't say "I might have tacos and then watch a Speedy Gonzalez retrospective".

Don't you knock Speedy Gonzales! That dude rocks! He's won at least one more Academy Award than any of us ever will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Gonzales
The world of America was bigoted and rife with ethnic stereotypes at the time. Those views were just as wrong then as they are now, but to censor the mouse is the same as pretending that those views never existed. Disney pretends that "Song of the South" was never made, but that's a mistake as well.

Not sure if you misunderstood me, as I wasn't knocking or "censoring" Speedy Gonzalez. FWIW, the Warner Brothers cartoons from the 1940s and 1950s are the quality standard that I compare all over animations to. And no doubt some of them have blatantly racist or ethnically insulting scenes and characters, which were viewed as acceptable back then.

My comment was that it would fit right in with the mayor's taco remark, to act like being a fan of Speedy Gonzalez would help build bridges to the modern day Latino community in East Haven.

>> ^therealblankman:

>> ^ulysses1904:
Wow....just....wow. I live near New Haven and have read about this quote but this is the first I'm seeing the footage. At least he didn't say "I might have tacos and then watch a Speedy Gonzalez retrospective".

Don't you knock Speedy Gonzales! That dude rocks! He's won at least one more Academy Award than any of us ever will. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speedy_Gonzales
The world of America was bigoted and rife with ethnic stereotypes at the time. Those views were just as wrong then as they are now, but to censor the mouse is the same as pretending that those views never existed. Disney pretends that "Song of the South" was never made, but that's a mistake as well.

The Backstory:
Here’s a way not to respond to charges that police officers in your town harassed, abused and brought false charges against Latino residents: by telling a reporter that you might eat tacos to help Latinos out.

Asked this week by WPIX reporter Mario Diaz what he would do for the Latino community, East Haven, Connecticut Mayor Joseph Maturo said he “might have tacos when I go home.”

Four officers in the town were charged by the Justice Department this week with conspiring to violate and violating the civil rights of Latino residents of the city. One officer allegedly said he “likes” harassing people who “have drifted into this county on rafts made of chicken wings.”

Maturo has subsequently apologized for his “insensitive and stupid answer.”

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

He's been given an official warning. Instead of continuing to drag this out and draw attention to it, why don't you move on and let the wheels of community justice take their course.

I'm not biting on your ridiculous straw man argument either. I don't in fact think this is an acceptable thing to say, but you've succeeded in pissing me off for making such an unsophisticated, pitch-fork wielding attempt at manipulation. Please lurk a little more. >> ^MycroftHomlz:

@dag... If you think this is an acceptable thing to say insert a different group...
"So stop pretending <insert group> are human beings."
gays, blacks, Latinos, Australians, Asians, Indians, Jews, Christians, Muslims....
I think it is pretty obvious this is over the line, which he has crossed numerous times.

@dag... If you think this is an acceptable thing to say insert a different group...

"So stop pretending <insert group> are human beings."
gays, blacks, Latinos, Australians, Asians, Indians, Jews, Christians, Muslims....

I think it is pretty obvious this is over the line, which he has crossed numerous times.

Reread what you wrote. You said: I'd say 'let them be dumb', not: I'd be willing to take action against Arizona.

Sincerely, I guess I am assuming you are white (which you admit you are) because I don't know why any American minority who is really subject to discrimination by private businesses would support repeal of laws that protect from said discrimination. It would seem to profoundly go against your self interest. From my experience, white Americans are less sensitive and less aware of such discrimination.

So, are you saying you have experienced overt discrimination by a private business based on your perceived race/ethnicity? If so, can you explain why you would support Ron Paul's position that would repeal laws that outlaw private businesses from discriminating against racial, ethnic, religious and other protected groups?

>> ^wax66:

>> ^longde:

You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

Again, you're ass-uming. I never said I'd be willing to let Arizona stew in its own mess. In fact, I'd be willing to take action against Arizona, especially if I was a resident. If I was a Latino in Arizona, I'd feel no differently, I'd STILL be willing to take action against the law. The beauty of America is that we CAN do that. In addition, if you re-read what I said, I said we don't need to ('let them be dumb'), which MEANS that we fight against it. If it's against federal law, the law will get invalidated!

Not to mention the fact that I not only grew up in a predominantly Latino area (there was a small handful of Caucasians at my school), but I LOOK Latino myself, and have been mistaken for one many times.
But go ahead and keep ass-uming.

>> ^longde:


You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

Again, you're ass-uming. I never said I'd be willing to let Arizona stew in its own mess. In fact, I'd be willing to take action against Arizona, especially if I was a resident. If I was a Latino in Arizona, I'd feel no differently, I'd STILL be willing to take action against the law. The beauty of America is that we CAN do that. In addition, if you re-read what I said, I said we don't need to ('let them be dumb'), which MEANS that we fight against it. If it's against federal law, the law will get invalidated!


Not to mention the fact that I not only grew up in a predominantly Latino area (there was a small handful of Caucasians at my school), but I LOOK Latino myself, and have been mistaken for one many times.

But go ahead and keep ass-uming.

"But in this argument, I actually agree with Paul, and I think Matthews is playing a cheap gotcha-game with him."
"Ultimately Matthews is just trying to get RP to slip him a negative soundbite that they can turn around and splash non-contextually throughout the media."

Matthews is not playing a gotcha game here. He is asking direct questions or posing clear hypotheticals to Paul. The reason they seem like gotcha questions is because truthful answers to those questions would polarize Paul's voting base. And would be totally abhorrent to voters like me who are otherwise receptive to Paul's message.

"So you're saying the US government is going to specially treat certain groups poorly because Ron Paul would be in office?"

No, I'm saying that Ron Paul would push to abolish laws like the 64 Civil Rights Act if he were president or begin to lean government in that direction. Am I wrong here?

"Again, we're talking about government legislation. Silly laws get passed all the time. In this case it has surely hurt Arizona already, and will continue to hurt them. I'd say 'let them be dumb', but in this case we don't really need to, as I doubt their law is constitutional."

You're willing to let Arizona stew in their mess because it doesn't affect you. If you were a latino in Arizona, you'd feel differently.

@chilaxe

Do you mean republican or non-partisan conservative? I'd say many latinos, blacks, asians, etc are conservative, but don't fold into the so-called conservative groups that have a fair amount of nativism present. I am fairly conservative on many issues, including being a fiscal conservative, but will never pull a lever for a Republican or a Conservative candidate.