>> ^ButterflyKisses:

I wonder what the people in Texas that have had their land taken from them via eminent domain for this mythical project feel about this. After all, Spain is our ally and we should be thankful that they are going to control a major set of thoroughfares in the US. I know this has been brought up in Congress and the House a few times. It's interesting to see some people call the NAFTA Superhighway project a crazy conspiracy theory when in actual reality it's right there in front of us.


I don't get the opposition to this freeway. Aren't there always eminent domain issues with new or widened highways/roads? Also, is Spain really going to completely own this road? What would be the point of Spain controlling a highway on American soil? What advantage would that give them? What ill could they inflict upon us if this were true? Potholes? A big toll? Staging point for a Spanish invasion? Is this just more conservative xenophobia?

Just curious - I've not really studied the arguments against this project.

>> ^NetRunner:

Wasn't there a point in history when libertarians felt that the very idea of government-issued identification was a sign of the end times?
I really just don't understand why immigration is ever "illegal" in the first place.
I'm with enoch, it seems to me that all the societal ills caused by immigration are actually caused by corporations breaking labor laws, not by the immigrants themselves.
But, I'm sure there's some obvious reason I'm missing why massive police action against the immigrants themselves is the necessary fix...
I mean, something other than racial xenophobia, since y'all swear it's just a red herring that us evil liberals invented.


Libertarians? No religious nut bags? Yes.

Wasn't there a point in history when libertarians felt that the very idea of government-issued identification was a sign of the end times?

I really just don't understand why immigration is ever "illegal" in the first place.

I'm with enoch, it seems to me that all the societal ills caused by immigration are actually caused by corporations breaking labor laws, not by the immigrants themselves.

But, I'm sure there's some obvious reason I'm missing why massive police action against the immigrants themselves is the necessary fix...

I mean, something other than racial xenophobia, since y'all swear it's just a red herring that us evil liberals invented.

>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^dannym3141:
What the fuck are you people talking about AIDS epidemics for? I saw a pretty heartwarming video about people finding a way to enjoy themselves and have fun in a country where there may be precious little else to have fun doing.
What you saw was a dirty african. Probably got AIDS. Right? Yeah, he probably went and gave AIDS to a little girl as well after he played his dirty condom football. Right?
Fuck you guys. Seriously. This is the worst kind of xenophobia. The kind where you don't even realise how xenophobic it is. You see an african, you see AIDS, you see having unprotected sex and spreading disease.

Ahem...first of all Africa is not a country. Secondly some countries in the African continent have up to a 25% HIV rate. Yea that was the first thing on my mind too...I mean it could've been "wow no wonder why people from Kenya are so fast, they like to play soccer". But it wasn't...it was AIDS...oh and overpopulating an area with little resources. I thought about how stupid that is too. It's ok to call people from African countries stupid. Just as long as it isn't because they're black.


First of all, where did i say africa was a country? I know africa isn't a country, i didn't call africa a country. If i had stated any country inside africa then i would be a) guessing and b) badly imitating the xenophobic generalisation as shown above.

Anyway. If the first thing you honestly saw was an irresponsible AIDS riddled african using his last condom on football rather than sex instead of a guy trying to have some fun where there's not a lot of fun going round, then i credit your honesty but i'm horrified.

Is it so hard to see a person? Am i alone?

>> ^dannym3141:

What the fuck are you people talking about AIDS epidemics for? I saw a pretty heartwarming video about people finding a way to enjoy themselves and have fun in a country where there may be precious little else to have fun doing.
What you saw was a dirty african. Probably got AIDS. Right? Yeah, he probably went and gave AIDS to a little girl as well after he played his dirty condom football. Right?
Fuck you guys. Seriously. This is the worst kind of xenophobia. The kind where you don't even realise how xenophobic it is. You see an african, you see AIDS, you see having unprotected sex and spreading disease.

*Ahem...first of all Africa is not a country. Secondly some countries in the African continent have up to a 25% HIV rate. Yea that was the first thing on my mind too...I mean it could've been "wow no wonder why people from Kenya are so fast, they like to play soccer". But it wasn't...it was AIDS...oh and overpopulating an area with little resources. I thought about how stupid that is too. It's ok to call people from African countries stupid. Just as long as it isn't because they're black.

What the fuck are you people talking about AIDS epidemics for? I saw a pretty heartwarming video about people finding a way to enjoy themselves and have fun in a country where there may be precious little else to have fun doing.

What you saw was a dirty african. Probably got AIDS. Right? Yeah, he probably went and gave AIDS to a little girl as well after he played his dirty condom football. Right?

Fuck you guys. Seriously. This is the worst kind of xenophobia. The kind where you don't even realise how xenophobic it is. You see an african, you see AIDS, you see having unprotected sex and spreading disease.

Ah, bless that man's stupid, hateful little heart. I'm sure he's just a big ole' puppydog once you get past the paranoid delusions, tiny penis syndrome, and blindly patriotic xenophobia. Surely!

>> ^marinara:

I have a video that proves that the consipiracy to promote racism by disguising it as ordinary politics extends to the left as well. I present the racist miners in their racist union:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jq6zYh_wDUk&playnext_
from=TL&videos=1BrOTfLk89E


It seems you've had to go pretty far in your search for false equivalence. First, you had to leave America, and go to Canada. Second, you had to say that "the left" means unions and not political parties. Then you had to say that nationalism is racism. You also need to equate things like defiantly saying "This is a Canadian community" with stuff teabaggers say.

Even if I grant you all of the above, your real problem is that you're getting the causation backwards. In the Sudbury situation, the schism starts as a substantive ideological debate (management vs. labor), but since the ideological divide perfectly coincides with a cultural difference, some xenophobia creeps into the debate.

My argument is that with the American right, you start with the xenophobia, and have the party expressly craft their message to encourage xenophobes to adopt a political ideology because it will serve their xenophobic goals.

For that to apply to the Canadian situation, you'd need to tell me that Sudbury was already rife with anti-Brazilian sentiment, and never thought of having a union until some left-wing party came in and told them the only way to keep the Brazilians out is to scare them away by unionizing and putting in place a strong safety and environmental regulation regime. Or by trying to pool their money, buy the mine themselves, and run it as an egalitarian collective.

Here's something Lee Atwater, the architect of the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush campaigns and mentor to Karl Rove, said in 1981:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

The idea is to package conservative ideas in such a way to attract racists, and provide them with a cover story so they have plausible deniability. In other words, so people like Southern Avenger here can claim "all they're doing is taking a principled stand based on their well-reasoned philosophy", even if they seem to be tolerating outrageously racist commentary and signage within their midst, and espousing a policy set that is generally condoned by racists due to its negative impact on non-whites.

These days it's less about racism per se, and more of a generalized form of xenophobia. It's the fear of people you don't know, don't understand, and who you don't want to have to care about or feel responsible for. It's why attempts to formally establish a legal responsibility to others (strangers!) are seen as intolerably intrusive.

Personally I think a lot of the rhetoric today is about dehumanizing the poor. It's often an expression of the belief that people who're poor have individually made some sort of choice that directly warrants things like losing their house, not having money for food, being unable to pay for medical care, etc. People who want on the government dime are all lazy leeches who're dragging all of society down, and if we give them help, they'll just stop trying to be productive, and try to leech more.

That started with racism, but I think just like the rhetoric, the emotional core got a lot more abstract -- it's not about demonizing black and brown people anymore, it's more about demonizing anyone who's different, so that the idea of having to take responsibility for them seems tyrannical.

I know that there's a huge percentage of moderately conservative people who don't buy into that emotional core, and want conservative-ish things done for pragmatic reasons. There's also a group of people who are True Believers, and think that the conservative ideology is morally superior to the alternatives, or that a libertarian policy set would benefit everyone greatly, even (especially?) the poor.

Those guys I like, and truly hope they find a way to purge the racists from their political organizations (i.e. the Tea Parties and the Republican party). That is, assuming they cool off on the calls for political violence (but that's a whole other conversation).

Building on what dft said, charges of racism wouldn't really stick if you guys stopped responded to it by saying "we condemn what you're talking about, and we'll take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again because racism won't be tolerated in our movement", instead of always saying "there's no racism here, and you're a racist for calling me a racist, racist!"

Well with in their rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[4] One such version was passed by the Congress, which reads:[5]
“ A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Another version is found in the copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, which had this capitalization and punctuation:[6]
“ A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. ”

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribe William Lambert and resides in the National Archives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

A militia is not, is not, the National Guard. The National guard is controlled by the Federal Government. These guys seem well spoken, but what did they think about Bush?

That wasn't a really big gun, it was what appeared to me, a modern version of the M14. Which shoots a .308 standard NATO 7.62x51mm round. No different than any other weapons issued in the modern world. Also, it appears that all of those weapons were Semi-Auto.

CAVEAT:

So I thought about this some while walking up the stairs. I stopped midway and said, "What the fuck?" There is some general Xenophobia seen in this group. The man mentioned Fort Hood. There also seems to be some general stupidity going on here too. First let me address Fort Hood. Fort Hood is a large sprawling base, where people live. Much like the Triangle in Virgina. There are tourists, and military people all over the place down there. Just because the shooter was Muslim, doesn't antiquate the fact that the shooter could have been anyone. Race means nothing in the eyes of Justice, she's blind. The man was a criminal all the same.

Secondly let's address that guy's fears of being shot in the back. I don't know how many weapons were present at the shoot, but given that there were many seen in the footage it would be safe to say that someone violated safety protocol at some point. Guns don't kill people by themselves. Negligence or intent of a person kills.

A gun by itself is an inanimate object incapable of any action. Safety is relative to the amount of training everyone has had. He doesn't want to be shot? Then put the gun down get back in the car and go home.

Good stuff, though I still think they're engaging in revisionism when they put up pictures of modern-day neocons, and say things like "they were actually former socialists who moved right".

Political terminology and party ideologies in this country have had a long and tumultuous history that brought them to the near perfect ideological sorting we see today.

The Democratic party started out as the small-government Republican party, later become a conservative, southern-based Democratic party, then a new liberal Republican party was formed out of the old anti-Republican party known as the Whigs, and then they fought the civil war against the conservative Democratic south that championed property and state rights.

After the civil war, Republicans became corporatists, Democrats became liberals (or if you want to be picky, the definition of "liberal Democrat" came to mean something new), while still largely being the party of racism and xenophobia. After the 60's, or more specifically the civil rights movement, a big realignment happened, and conservatives who called themselves Democrats changed to be Republicans, and liberals who called themselves Republicans became Democrats.

Somewhere in the 30's and 40's you saw a concerted effort to groom and promote intellectuals who weren't socialists (most were, back then). Over the unfolding decades, they offered a plausible, intellectual cover for southern racists who were still mad about being told they had to treat black people like humans, and pitched it as a return to America's traditional values. This attracted social conservatives to libertarian ideology, and it dovetailed nicely with the corporatist Republican party's desire to cut taxes for the wealthy, and roll back the worker protections the left had recently installed.

Thus was the genesis of the modern day Republican party, and its brand of conservatism that takes libertarian ideology, and twists it to appeal to racists, religious dominionists, corporate interests, then brandishes the supposedly righteous moral arguments of libertarians against people who point out the real purpose of the movement.

It's good to see that libertarians are becoming cognizant of what's being done in the name of their philosophical heroes, but it's not like they're going to be able to disengage themselves from it now, and they certainly can't get away with trying to pin all the racists, corporatists, and dominionists they've empowered on America's political left, and certainly not by simply branding the likes of Dick Cheney a "socialist".

But I'm rant prone. I did like the clip, and agreed with most of it. Just stop trying to foist Dick Cheney on the left. He hates us, and would murder us all in our sleep if he thought he could get away with it.

'Race Card' is the biggest cop out ever invented. If you don't want to be accused of racism, don't drag race into these videos. And don't praise rabid and violent racists. The below quotes are from this thread, not YouTube:

"Black people.. makin' [half of] me look bad"

"Listen to enough black comedians (Eddie Murphy to be precise) and you'll learn that much of their fighting consists of scaring the opponent in hopes that they don't actually fight."

Please explain to me how this kid's actions reflect on all black people? Again, why drag this into it? It's this kneejerk racism that gets me. And you want to defend it and EBM.


Danny, the guy yelled many racial epithets. Stop making EBM into Clark Kent. It was clear he wanted to instigate a fight. Anyone, but EBM's weaker, stupider prey, could see that that kid was outmatched.



>> ^dannym3141:
Sorry to say this but there's a lot of sorry excuse making going on here, including you peggedbea who i'd expect more of.
So many people playing the race card, or trying to. Very easy to pass something off as racism, in fact in our society i think we fanatically adhere to anti-xenophobia to the point where we're dangerously on the other side of the line of fairness.
What this comes down to is one moron threatening a guy and getting his arse kicked within a reasonable limit. I'm not an expert in smack talk, slang or american accents but i didn't hear any racism from EBM, especially before any racism was thrown at him.
The guy moved away, he didn't want to fight, but some dickhead had to try and ruin someone's day, and he got his shit ruined.
You make me so angry making excuses for these fucking morons.. people like this guy (yes he's black but that's only an identifying characteristic, NOT RACISM) are the reason this world is going to shit. I hope he fucking chokes on his teeth, and i hope EBM can kick some more ass of people who go around thinking that they're untouchable and can do what they like without consequences.
What a disappointment, videosift. A guy defends himself from physical assault and you shout him down.

Sorry to say this but there's a lot of sorry excuse making going on here, including you peggedbea who i'd expect more of.

So many people playing the race card, or trying to. Very easy to pass something off as racism, in fact in our society i think we fanatically adhere to anti-xenophobia to the point where we're dangerously on the other side of the line of fairness.

What this comes down to is one moron threatening a guy and getting his arse kicked within a reasonable limit. I'm not an expert in smack talk, slang or american accents but i didn't hear any racism from EBM, especially before any racism was thrown at him.

The guy moved away, he didn't want to fight, but some dickhead had to try and ruin someone's day, and he got his shit ruined.

You make me so angry making excuses for these fucking morons.. people like this guy (yes he's black but that's only an identifying characteristic, NOT RACISM) are the reason this world is going to shit. I hope he fucking chokes on his teeth, and i hope EBM can kick some more ass of people who go around thinking that they're untouchable and can do what they like without consequences.

What a disappointment, videosift. A guy defends himself from physical assault and you shout him down.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'minutemen, neonazi, columbia' to 'minutemen, neonazi, columbia, jim gilchrist, white supremacist, xenophobia, racism' - edited by Issykitty

leave it to billo to project xenophobia to an animal that doesn't even know the district it's peeing on
seriously.. every time he opens his mouth, he digs himself slightly deeper