Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly.


Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?

So, 4% plus 54% of gay sympathizers equals 58%, does THAT make THAT right?



EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population.

The Winners write the history. Mexicans are the result of Spain conquering Mestizo Indians, so you can take this silly 'blame game' back to the Stone Age if you want.

This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

I don't disagree, but bad people are typically not a nation's majority here or anywhere else. In America one is free to leave any time and I doubt one can find a better country.














>> ^Yogi:

>> ^quantumushroom:
If The Gay is genetic despite the variables of the spectrum, in the future the option to make a fetus 'not gay' will likely be offered. I neither condemn nor condone this inevitable tech.
The 4% indeed has a voice, right now it's far-too-loud, an imbalance that will have to find its center. When religious people state that, per their beliefs, they consider homosexuality wrong, they are made into 'hate criminals'. "Gay history" is now mandatory in at least one mexifornian school.
I'm all for personal freedom, but rights can't be spun out of thin air, and that's what's been happening.


>> ^rottenseed:
Sexuality and the hormones driving it falls on a spectrum and it involves several chemical processes. Since it's OBVIOUSLY not passed on from gay parent to gay child, that means straight people are having homosexual children at a rate of (4%?) or whatever it is.
And that 4% of the population deserves a voice. And the oppression of their rights should be of more concern than just 4% of the population. We should all be involved with maintaining one another's personal freedoms.>> ^quantumushroom:
The Gay is likely genetic, but that means in a few decades it can be "cured". And 4% of the population has no business steering an entire election.
Cain, unlike Obama, seems to understand the Constitution limits presidential power. Good on him.



Ummm no because there are people who agree with that 4% bumping up the statistic significantly. Also Democracy isn't right if it's used to take away the rights of individuals. So 58% of people can say that they think Black people should be slaves...does that make it right?
EDIT: Bonus points for "Mexifornian" because it was Mexico before we attacked them needlessly and took their land from them after destroying the indigenous population. This great country you love is filled with humans as bad as any that have ever lived.

>> ^Pprt:

The man is a Mestizo because Hispanics looks like this: http://videosift.com/video/Carving-the-Mountains

Hispanics don't look like anything in particular. Anyone who lives in a country that was once conquered by Spain is considered Hispanic; it's a term of culture and language, not race. That being said, this guy is definitely Hispanic but he may or may not be Mestizo.

I thought maybe you knew something I didn't but apparently I had it backwards.

The man is a Mestizo because Hispanics looks like this: http://videosift.com/video/Carving-the-Mountains

As for messenger: your complacency is precisely why the West is spiralling into a nonentity.

I'll throw in the same argument as above: if you have lived in Korea for 25 years and failed to learn the language, would you consider yourself Korean? Would you have the gall to go before a government body and provide testimony that you expect more be done for "your people" in English or French?

>> ^Pprt:

This Mestizo's insolence is insulting

I don't feel like addressing the rest of your comment but I am curious, how do you know he's Mestizo?

I'm pretty sure if both you folks had lived in Mexico or any other country for a quarter century you'd have the decency to address people in the language of the land. And if you were illiterate I'm sure you wouldn't clamour on about stuff that is owed to you.

This Mestizo's insolence is insulting, but we are the fools who permitted and encouraged his insularization.

>> ^Opus_Moderandi:
Therefore, rottenseed : I believe Mexican is a nationality, not a race. The race would be Spanish.

Spanish is a nationality. It's pretty easy, really... any descriptor whose base is the name of a nation (Canadian, Iraqi, Mexican, Japanese) is a nationality. American, oddly, is considered a nationality even though America isn't a nation. United Statish probably just sounds too goofy.

Spain's indigenous population is Caucasoid and a whole lot of Mexicans are as well. I've seen the native peoples of Mexico labeled as everything from Australoid to Mongoloid; I'm not sure there's any agreed-upon racial classification there. Of course many of them are also a mix; Mestizo or Zambo.

The Mestizo invaders have known about this for decades. I'm surprised you found an English version.

>> ^Diogenes:
erm, the term 'latin languages' is synonymous with 'romance languages' (i.e. spanish, portuguese, italian, french and romanian)
following the various conquests and subsequent colonization efforts, the people of european, primarily iberian, extraction referred to themselves by nationality generally, and regionality specifically (e.g. espanol and andaluz, respectively) -- purely indigenous peoples were called 'indios' and those of mixed race were called 'mestizos'
logically, as the numbers of the latter increased over time, they took to referring to themselves as latino-americanos or hispano-americanos, now shortened to latino and hispanic
being one of these, i don't find the terms particularly offensive -- what would you rather we do? would 'mexican-american' suffice? or do we need to be even more pc and culturally specific (i.e. moche, quechua, aymara, nazca, jivaro, mayan, olmec, toltec, mexica, aztec, oaxacan, nahuatlese, etc)?



It's not offensive, I'm just annoyed by the misnomer of applying the "latin" label to only a subset of romance-language speakers across the pond from where latin was spoken. We already have some more accurate labels for region of citizenship (mexican, honduran, central american, etc) and genetic origin (hispanic, native american, mixed)

erm, the term 'latin languages' is synonymous with 'romance languages' (i.e. spanish, portuguese, italian, french and romanian)

following the various conquests and subsequent colonization efforts, the people of european, primarily iberian, extraction referred to themselves by nationality generally, and regionality specifically (e.g. espanol and andaluz, respectively) -- purely indigenous peoples were called 'indios' and those of mixed race were called 'mestizos'

logically, as the numbers of the latter increased over time, they took to referring to themselves as latino-americanos or hispano-americanos, now shortened to latino and hispanic

being one of these, i don't find the terms particularly offensive -- what would you rather we do? would 'mexican-american' suffice? or do we need to be even more pc and culturally specific (i.e. moche, quechua, aymara, nazca, jivaro, mayan, olmec, toltec, mexica, aztec, oaxacan, nahuatlese, etc)?