DescentBB

[youtube]V_Ys621qFPE[/youtube]

So, they'll be like Canada

Just like there are fewer and fewer white Europeans in the U.S. Cultures change with time NS, unless most Germans want to go back to good old Nazism and exterminate those who are not pure white, blond, blue eyed, Christian and Aryan. That tactic worked out quite well for them, until WWII fixed that little error in their thinking.

tunnelcat wrote:Just like there are fewer and fewer white Europeans in the U.S. Cultures change with time NS, unless most Germans want to go back to good old Nazism and exterminate those who are not pure white, blond, blue eyed, Christian and Aryan. That tactic worked out quite well for them, until WWII fixed that little error in their thinking.

...to be replaced by brown eyed, long bearded nazis that fly the black flag of allah. One intolerant set of psychopaths replaced by another.

well, this just went godwin in the fastest possible way.

Ferno wrote:well, this just went godwin in the fastest possible way.

Cheap cop out reply to a real concern, as usual.

tunnelcat wrote:Just like there are fewer and fewer white Europeans in the U.S. Cultures change with time NS, unless most Germans want to go back to good old Nazism and exterminate those who are not pure white, blond, blue eyed, Christian and Aryan. That tactic worked out quite well for them, until WWII fixed that little error in their thinking.

This is not about race but religion. Ask Syrian Christians how safe they feel under ISIS.

Nightshade wrote:

Ferno wrote:well, this just went godwin in the fastest possible way.

Cheap cop out reply to a real concern, as usual.

no you are trying to make a 'real concern' out of a natural phenomena for all cultures and mixing it your own fears and biases.

Nightshade wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:Just like there are fewer and fewer white Europeans in the U.S. Cultures change with time NS, unless most Germans want to go back to good old Nazism and exterminate those who are not pure white, blond, blue eyed, Christian and Aryan. That tactic worked out quite well for them, until WWII fixed that little error in their thinking.

...to be replaced by brown eyed, long bearded nazis that fly the black flag of allah. One intolerant set of psychopaths replaced by another.

What? Latinos and Asians don't appeal to you any better, because they are the ones who are rapidly becoming the majority. I also seriously doubt Radical Muslims will ever be in favor here. There are too many guns in the hands of too many Americans who would take extreme exception and remedy the issue.

tunnelcat wrote:
What? Latinos and Asians don't appeal to you any better, because they are the ones who are rapidly becoming the majority.

Que interesante que dices eso TC, porque yo soy un 'Latino.' ("Latino" es un nombre que los gringos nos llaman porque hablamos Español. No somos una gente homogéneo. Nomas es mas fácil para ustedes a generalizar a nosotros, los 'latinos.')

So I wonder why TC would think 'Latinos' wouldn't "appeal" to me.

As an aside, lefties want us to use 'hyphenated' American designations so according to them I would be 'Mexican-American.' However, I prefer to simply be referred to as an American.

It's amazing that the left professes that it wishes everyone to be 'equal' and one people- but they do everything they can to balkanize the American citizenry by separating us into groups of race, gender and ancestry.

Nightshade wrote:

Ferno wrote:well, this just went godwin in the fastest possible way.

Cheap cop out reply to a real concern, as usual.

null acquit.

Nightshade wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:
What? Latinos and Asians don't appeal to you any better, because they are the ones who are rapidly becoming the majority.

Que interesante que dices eso TC, porque yo soy un 'Latino.' ("Latino" es un nombre que los gringos nos llaman porque hablamos Español. No somos una gente homogéneo. Nomas es mas fácil para ustedes a generalizar a nosotros, los 'latinos.')

So I wonder why TC would think 'Latinos' wouldn't "appeal" to me.

As an aside, lefties want us to use 'hyphenated' American designations so according to them I would be 'Mexican-American.' However, I prefer to simply be referred to as an American.

It's amazing that the left professes that it wishes everyone to be 'equal' and one people- but they do everything they can to balkanize the American citizenry by separating us into groups of race, gender and ancestry.

I use the term "Latino" to describe all those from south of our southern border, including Mexcio, Central America, South America and Cuba, since they mostly have a mixed heritage of native Mesoamerican and Spanish. Yes, I can even understand your Spanish. In our own history, multi-lingual areas of the U.S. were quite common depending on the nationality of those immigrants. They would concentrate into a particular area because they were comfortable together and commonly spoke their native language because it was easier and it grounded them to their former home and heritage. It was their children who learned English and perpetuated it to become English speaking Americans just as the children of most Latinos that stay here eventually learn English.

Swedish was spoken as much, if not more, in the early part of Minnesota's history for example. English eventually won out, because the following generations were pretty much required to learn it to function. Take this counter example of partial-assimilation, the Cajun speaking areas in Lousiana. Those immigrants were the Acadians, who themselves were exiles, expelled from Eastern Canada of all places. Their language is still a mismash of French and English and it's sometimes even the dominant mode of speech in many of the rural areas in that state. I don't see even Bobby Gindal griping about them being "dual language", which many of them are, so don't throw your idea of the "homogenious American" around like that's the way things are supposed to be.

NS, this country has always had an issue with immigrants, despite the fact we are a nation made up of immigrants. Even the Founding Fathers had their own immigrant bias. A hyphenated American description is nothing but an age old way for foreigners to slowly assimilate themselves into their new country. My husband's grandmother even proudly put forth her Swedish heritage, long after she had become naturalized as an American. All you're doing NS is to wear your xenophobia like a badge of hate, which seems to be what most conservatives are doing these days.

http://theweek.com/articles/531465/hyph ... n-identity

http://cis.org/renshon/value-of-a-hyphenated-identity

There is a difference TC. All previous immigrants sought to become a part of America. It is not simple 'hate' or xenophobia. I'm not afraid of someone because they speak a different language or have a different shade of skin. It is the content of their intent towards me and others who do not believe in the same 'god' (or NO god) as they do.

Unfortunately many muslim immigrants do NOT assimilate nor do they want to. The more 'conservative' elements even seek to 'conquer' this land (and others- see Europe) for islam.

meanwhile, we have our own terrorists in our midst. Let's deal with them, howzabout it?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/suspec ... li=BBnb7Kz

I'm betting this guy didn't come from North Carolina with thoughts of Jihad.

Or we could list crimes by the Animal Liberation Front...

woodchip wrote:Or we could list crimes by the Animal Liberation Front...

can't recall any murders or shootouts. Can you? If so, add them to the list of folks more dangerous to the Union than a bunch of families from Syria.

He might be referring to the acts of arson and destruction by ALF.

callmeslick wrote:meanwhile, we have our own terrorists in our midst. Let's deal with them, howzabout it?

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/suspec ... li=BBnb7Kz

I'm betting this guy didn't come from North Carolina with thoughts of Jihad.

I'm betting that he wasn't sanctioned by a "holyman/warrior" to kill people either.

you are too naive, TB.

Nightshade wrote:There is a difference TC. All previous immigrants sought to become a part of America. It is not simple 'hate' or xenophobia. I'm not afraid of someone because they speak a different language or have a different shade of skin. It is the content of their intent towards me and others who do not believe in the same 'god' (or NO god) as they do.

Unfortunately many muslim immigrants do NOT assimilate nor do they want to. The more 'conservative' elements even seek to 'conquer' this land (and others- see Europe) for islam.

Most Mexicans I've dealt with spoke english just fine and their kids usually spoke perfect english and acted like typical Americans. In other words, they assimilated just fine.They even worshiped the Christian Savior Jesus. I have a Chinese neighbor couple. They are bilingual and so are their kids and they live as the typical American family. The husband worked for HP, then started and later retired from his own profitable business that he ran for 20 years. They assimilated just fine as well, even though they are not Christians. We had a local Lebanese Muslim family that ran a local resturant. They spoke fluent accented english and made absolutely fantastic food. They didn't run a backdoor jihad shop. I didn't care what God they worshipped, nor did they question who I worshipped in the course of serving me while running their business. It didn't bother them that didn't wear any headcoverings either.

tunnelcat wrote:They didn't run a backdoor jihad shop.

"Yet" or "that you knew of." Take your pick.

callmeslick wrote:you are too naive, TB.

The most rabid "Christians" I have seen (the Westboro Baptist nuts) have been disgusting and bat**** crazy, but haven't killed a single person yet for "God."

And yet we have Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers...founder of the Weather Underground, a terrorist of the first magnitude. Funny how, if the terrorist is a liberal, they wind up as teachers instead of being locked away.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you are too naive, TB.

The most rabid "Christians" I have seen (the Westboro Baptist nuts) have been disgusting and bat**** crazy, but haven't killed a single person yet for "God."

but, we had one shoot up a PP clinic, mumbling about baby parts and Obama the other day, killing three.

woodchip wrote:And yet we have Obama's buddy, Bill Ayers...founder of the Weather Underground, a terrorist of the first magnitude. Funny how, if the terrorist is a liberal, they wind up as teachers instead of being locked away.

get over Bill Ayers, please. He's been a teacher for 40 years now, hardly advocating violence, but teaching at a college. That is the thing, you can reform terrorists, people change, and all that.

Nightshade wrote:

callmeslick wrote:you are too naive, TB.

The most rabid "Christians" I have seen (the Westboro Baptist nuts) have been disgusting and bat**** crazy, but haven't killed a single person yet for "God."

Maybe you should try looking at this report to test your preconceptions. It's basically a comprehensive summary of global terrorism activity over the past 15 years. Of particular note re: your usual brand of fear-mongering:

Islamic fundamentalism was not the main cause of terrorism in the West over the last nine years. Eighty percent of deaths by lone wolf terrorists in the West were driven by right wing extremism, nationalism, antigovernment sentiment and political extremism and other forms of supremacy.

So basically we should be far more concerned about a group of middle-aged white nutjobs hoarding guns in Montana than we should anyone yelling "Allahu akbar!"

Top Gun wrote:So basically we should be far more concerned about a group of middle-aged white nutjobs hoarding guns in Montana than we should anyone yelling "Allahu akbar!"

The sheer number of dead from islamic terrorism FAR outweighs incidents of 'right wing' terrorism. Read the report you cited yourself. The report also did NOT include the Charlie Hebdo and Paris attacks that occurred this year (which were the LARGEST attacks to date in any western country excluding the US- which of course suffered 9/11.)

Nightshade wrote:

Top Gun wrote:So basically we should be far more concerned about a group of middle-aged white nutjobs hoarding guns in Montana than we should anyone yelling "Allahu akbar!"

The sheer number of dead from islamic terrorism FAR outweighs incidents of 'right wing' terrorism. Read the report you cited yourself. The report also did NOT include the Charlie Hebdo and Paris attacks that occurred this year (which were the LARGEST attacks to date in any western country excluding the US- which of course suffered 9/11.)

so one terrorism is better than the other based solely on the death count? awesome.

Nightshade wrote:

Top Gun wrote:So basically we should be far more concerned about a group of middle-aged white nutjobs hoarding guns in Montana than we should anyone yelling "Allahu akbar!"

The sheer number of dead from islamic terrorism FAR outweighs incidents of 'right wing' terrorism.

not in the US, over the past decade or more. Aren't we supposed to be focused on the safety of our own people? That's right, we don't respond when little kids are gunned down with high-powered weapons in an elementary school. Public safety be damned, right? It's all about the ideology.

Ferno wrote:so one terrorism is better than the other based solely on the death count? awesome.

You mean "one terrorism is more of a threat to humanity based solely on the death count." Fixed it for you.

callmeslick wrote:That's right, we don't respond when little kids are gunned down with high-powered weapons in an elementary school. Public safety be damned, right? It's all about the ideology.

And now you're moving from terrorism to acts of mass murder by single individuals with no ideology- other than to inflict as much pain as they could before killing themselves.

Apples to oranges when it comes to motive. One is based on a world-wide ideology. The other is merely homicidal happenstance.

nothing fixed. The potential for one no greater than the other, going forward.

Nightshade wrote:You mean "one terrorism is more of a threat to humanity based solely on the death count." Fixed it for you.

No. I don't.

But I do see the ethical egoism bull★■◆● you're trying to pull.

The other is merely homicidal happenstance.

Based on the ideology of anti-abortion.

So naive.