The Ghost of Paley
Posts: 1703
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote | | Mr. Paley is clearly trying to make a comparison to the government of Israel. |
Very good. So you see the irony, then: Comparing my plan to the Nazis is just a little suspect when same plan is derived from a much harsher strategy formulated by the Nazi's victims. Now, you might say that America and Europe's situation is considerably different from Israel's, and I would agree. This is one (among many) reasons that my plan does not call for the forceful deportation of American citizens.
| Quote | | When Mexico and Canada are armed to the teeth, call for our destruction, and try to invade several times, then one could compare the policies of America and Israel. Until then, please stop playing word games and simply say what you mean. The line between being disingenuous and outright lying is a very thin one, and you are getting very close. |
I really don't understand what you're getting at. Uncle Paley doesn't speak in code - he says what he means. Not that this stops people from misunderstanding me. But on to your point.
True, Mexico and Canada are no military threat to us, but this doesn't render immigration benign. Immigrants can drive law-abiding citizens out of certain regions merely by targeting them for crime, by rioting, and by soaking up social services. And some want a whole lot more. To be sure, extremists can be found in any group, but the behavior of many of our newcomers adds legitimacy to these concerns.
| Quote | Quote
3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want.
Pointless mental masturbation. Go take a poli sci class or two...even better, you could go get a degree in that subject, like I did. But you know what, if you want to abolish these laws, go right ahead and write to your congressman, it's your right. I wouldn't hold my breath. Since neither congress nor the President would do that, how would you accomplish it? |
How do you think many of these laws got established in the first place? By a selective, and unjust, interpretation of this law. But what is done may be undone, especially if the foundation was based on a lie.
| Quote | In fact, Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey, a sponsor of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, vigorously denied charges that the act would lead to the categorization by race and the use of quotas.
He even promised to eat the paper on which the bill was printed if it led to equality of results.
Responding to charges that the act would lead to categorization and thus decision making by race, Humphrey stated on the Senate floor "In fact, the opposite is true. Title VII prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that race, religion, and national origin are not to be used as the basis for hiring and firing."
But through a fairly rapid process of bureaucratic manipulation and court decisions, equality of opportunity was rejected as inadequate and replaced with equality of outcomes.
Fourteen years after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, signaling the postmortem to Humphrey’s non-discriminatory law, wrote in the famous Bakke decision, "I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a race neutral way . . . In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race . . . In order to treat some persons equally, we must treat them differently."
Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, who made the case for a colorblind constitution as a lawyer for the NAACP, reportedly told his fellow Justice William O. Douglass, who commented upon the discriminatory nature of affirmative action, "You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it’s our turn."
|
Let me repeat that last bit:
Wow. No racial animus there.
--------------
Dey can't 'andle my riddim.
|
