Insurgents vs moderate liberal Democrats

[occam whisker]

Eleven Sunni \"insurgent\" organizations have reportedly told the Iraqi government that they will lay down their arms in exchange for a series of concessions, the key one being that American forces cease all offensive operations against them and set a timetable for withdrawal in 24 months.

Democrats want a pull out within 18 months, and without preconditions--not even the empty promise that insurgents lay down arms.

[midwinter]

Peace emboldens the enemy!

[e1618978]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Eleven Sunni \"insurgent\" organizations have reportedly told the Iraqi government that they will lay down their arms in exchange for a series of concessions, the key one being that American forces cease all offensive operations against them and set a timetable for withdrawal in 24 months.

Democrats want a pull out within 18 months, and without preconditions--not even the empty promise that insurgents lay down arms.

What percentage of the insurgent population is represented by this deal?

Do we have to stop offensive operations against all insergents, or just the 11 groups?

I doubt that it would be easy to implement this deal (look at the problems in Israel with multiple Palistinian groups - how do you verify for sure what group a particular insergent is in?)

What counts are permainant withdrawal? We have a 20-billion dollar embassy with plans for troops in it, and permainant bases in Kurdistan.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by e1618978
What percentage of the insurgent population is represented by this deal?

Do we have to stop offensive operations against all insergents, or just the 11 groups?

I doubt that it would be easy to implement this deal (look at the problems in Israel with multiple Palistinian groups - how do you verify for sure what group a particular insergent is in?)

What counts are permainant withdrawal? We have a 20-billion dollar embassy with plans for troops in it, and permainant bases in Kurdistan.


Ask the Iranians.

[hardeeharhar]

"moderate liberal"

[addabox]

No worries-- Bush has rejected any such deal out of hand.

So, to recap: Dems call for a pullout without getting a deal, whereas Bush will stay the course without a plan and refuses a deal, until he or a successor is forced out by the shear, massive, pointless stupidity of it all (AKA "winning").

Thank God Bush is calling the shots! You need at least 3500 American dead to plausibly declare victory, and those Dems might have subjected us to a humiliating 2,700 or so.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by midwinter
Peace emboldens the enemy! Emboldening emboldens the enemy!

[Outsider]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
"moderate liberal" I know, it's like being a little pregnant. Maybe he meant "moderate/liberal Democrats".

[midwinter]

Originally posted by Outsider
I know, it's like being a little pregnant. Maybe he meant "moderate/liberal Democrats".

I think it's more like "moderate libertarians."

[groverat]

I advocate an immediate withdrawal as soon as we can get gas in the tanks, so to speak.

What does that make me? Super left-wing liberal Communist?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by groverat
I advocate an immediate withdrawal as soon as we can get gas in the tanks, so to speak.

What does that make me? Super left-wing liberal Communist?



A skilled diplomat for the Surrender Monkeys of the Democratic Party.

[groverat]

Can I be French, too?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by groverat
Can I be French, too?

[eddie izzard] Do you have a flaaaaaag? ;) [/eddie izzard]

[spindler]

groverat wrote:

"I advocate an immediate withdrawal as soon as we can get gas in the tanks, so to speak."

What am I missing here? While I am personally disgusted about how we got into this mess and the price to get to this point, right now I am interested to know if it is possible for groups that have been at each other's throats for years to put the past aside, given the best conditions.

If not for the U.S. involvement, the Sunnis and Shiites would have undoubtedly fought forever. Whichever side had more power at the moment would dominate the other. Even if you want to have peace with the other side, you can't trust them, and therefore can't afford to lay down your arms, so they can't trust you. The fighting then goes on forever. It's like the Hatfields and the McCoys.

It is fascinating to watch to see if the Sunnis and Shiites can form a military that will protect the country, and be united. I don't see how anyone can not see this as a pivotal question about the future of the Middle East.

We are setting up the best of conditions to see if these two groups can come to the table together, work for their mutual interest, and stop fighting. I don't see how anyone could not be for this.

And if the troops pulled out now, many, many more Iraqis would die, so from a sheer humanitarian point of view, pulling the troops out isn't that exciting.

So no matter how we got the hand we are holding, I can't see not wanting to play it out and see how things unfold.

[midwinter]

Jeez. Why can't I find my post about inserting our massive column repeatedly into Iraq until she is showered with freedom when I need it?

[groverat]

Originally posted by spindler
If not for the U.S. involvement, the Sunnis and Shiites would have undoubtedly fought forever.

Why, in god's name, are you using past tense?

What do you think is happening in Iraq right now?

And if the troops pulled out now, many, many more Iraqis would die, so from a sheer humanitarian point of view, pulling the troops out isn't that exciting.

More Iraqis would probably die in the short term, yes. Long term, however, Iraq would be in the hands of Iraqis to do with what they want.

I do not share the opinion that they are stupid animals hell-bent on each other's destruction, so I think that without the US there egging on foreign terrorists and giving insurgents justifiable cause to blow everything up the chances for a long term peace are much much higher.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by groverat
More Iraqis would probably die in the short term, yes. Long term, however, Iraq would be in the hands of Iraqis to do with what they want.



If you believe that you haven\'t been following the real story--Iran.

[spindler]

groverat wrote:

"I do not share the opinion that they are stupid animals hell-bent on each other's destruction."

Let's say it's true that 90% of Iraqis are reasonable. That's great. But in the short run, you have massive tensions, lots of bad guys, and the possibility of a civil war. I never said that mainstream Iraqis were "stupid animals hellbent on each other's destruction." But for now, it would be much better for everyone if Iraq had a single military, balanced between Shiites and Sunnis, under full control of a democratic government, and with no ties to outside insurgent groups.

If you just have 40 different groups running around with guns and Americans leave, chaos may break out. The Iraqi population may have good intentions, some of the insurgent groups may have good long run intentions, but you have to bring all sides to the table to work together. Different groups don't trust each other.

I'm not talking about Americans running the show. We just need to be around long enough until things are stabilized. And I DO factor in that we may be making things unstable with our presence, but you would still have to decide on the most stable path of all available.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
If you believe that you haven\'t been following the real story--Iran.


Yes and when the communist from the north take over the south all of southeast asia will be come communist. Then they'll spread to Japan and.....oh!

Heard this one before.;)

[BRussell]

Originally posted by spindler
While I am personally disgusted about how we got into this mess and the price to get to this point, right now I am interested to know if it is possible for groups that have been at each other's throats for years to put the past aside, given the best conditions. I basically agree with you, but I have to ask you: How long will it take before Iraq is a stable country? A country that is no longer in serious danger of descending into chaos or civil war? I honestly can't imagine it would be shorter than some number x > 5 with the word 'decades' after it.

Second, is that stability likely to come faster or slower with tens of thousands of US troops there?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yes and when the communist from the north take over the south all of southeast asia will be come communist. Then they\'ll spread to Japan and.....oh!

Heard this one before.;)


A second \"Iran Iraq War\" is a real possibility. There\'s a real tag of war between Najaf and Qom.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
A second \"Iran Iraq War\" is a real possibility. There\'s a real tag of war between Najaf and Qom.


And we're involved because.............?

[Aquatic]

Because we're lazy and can't walk so we need to have huge SUVs to drive us half a mile, everywhere we go, in this country, utilizing oil from the Mideast, because we're too stupid to realize developing renewable energy is in our best interest economically and perhaps even for national security. And perhaps that walking is in our arteries' best interest.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
And we\'re involved because.............?

To make sure the Spice keeps flowing....

[jimmac]

Originally posted by occam whisker
To make sure the Spice keeps flowing....

Yes and we all know what happened to Shaddam the IV and the navigators don't we.;)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by jimmac
Yes and we all know what happened to Shaddam the IV and the navigators don\'t we.;)

Dr Who banished them to eternal time travel in a telephone booth? :)

[Immanuel Goldstein]

President Skroob sucked their air with MegaMaid®.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
President Skroob sucked their air with MegaMaid®.

LOL. Immanuel!

[jimmac]

Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
President Skroob sucked their air with MegaMaid®.


President Skroob?:lol:

[groverat]

spindler:

I'm not talking about Americans running the show. We just need to be around long enough until things are stabilized. And I DO factor in that we may be making things unstable with our presence, but you would still have to decide on the most stable path of all available.

If you acknowledge that our presence is an inherent destabilizer, how on earth can we "be around long enough until things are stabilized"?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by groverat
spindler:



If you acknowledge that our presence is an inherent destabilizer, how on earth can we "be around long enough until things are stabilized"?

Sheesh Groverat! Occupier always bring stability: just look at the English occpations of America, India, and Northern Ireland!

[Immanuel Goldstein]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Originally posted by Immanuel Goldstein
President Skroob sucked their air with MegaMaid®.
LOL. Immanuel!
Soll der Schwartz mit dir zein.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by midwinter
Sheesh Groverat! Occupier always bring stability: just look at the English occpations of America, India, and Northern Ireland!

:lol:

Ain't that the truth!

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Sheesh Groverat! Occupier always bring stability: just look at the English occpations of America, India, and Northern Ireland!

Racist!

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Racist!

Did he mention a race?

[midwinter]

I have no idea what OW is on about.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
I have no idea what OW is on about.

What do you mean by Occupier?! :mad:

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
What do you mean by Occupier?! :mad:

The game would probably be more fun for you if you'd give a little more information to us.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
The game would probably be more fun for you if you\'d give a little more information to us.

You said the English are Occupiers of America, India, and Ireland! What\'s that supposed to mean? These places, which are arbitrarily designated, are meant to be English free?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You said the English are Occupiers of America, India, and Ireland! What\'s that supposed to mean? These places, which are arbitrarily designated, are meant to be English free?

Ah! I see! I hadn't realized I was arguing with someone from England circa 1800. Could you answer a question for me? I've always wanted to know: do you feel the English occupation in these places (say, India) was a function of some notion of an English right to do so, or was it a function of some notion of an English obligation to liberate the savages?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Ah! I see! I hadn\'t realized I was arguing with someone from England circa 1800. Could you answer a question for me? I\'ve always wanted to know: do you feel the English occupation in these places (say, India) was a function of some notion of an English right to do so, or was it a function of some notion of an English obligation to liberate the savages?


I\'m still waiting for an answer to my queries.

You describe the English as Occupiers of America, India, and Ireland. What do you mean by that? I think that implied in that statement is a racist proposition and I\'d like to make sure I\'m not misunderstanding you.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I\'m still waiting for an answer to my queries.

You describe the English as Occupiers of America, India, and Ireland. What do you mean by that? I think that implied in that statement is a racist proposition and I\'d like to make sure I\'m not misunderstanding you.

Dude, I have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I made a joke about England's occupations (which function as a kind of synedoche for all occupations) never bringing stability to any of the places they occupied and usually ending in abject failure with England withdrawing.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Dude, I have no fucking clue what you\'re talking about. I made a joke about England\'s occupations (which function as a kind of synedoche for all occupations) never bringing stability to any of the places they occupied and usually ending in abject failure with England withdrawing.

It\'s a pretty simple question. What do you mean by English occupation?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
It\'s a pretty simple question. What do you mean by English occupation?

The English occupied India, America and (still) Northern Ireland. And since you asked for my definition of "occupation": when one country conquers another country by force of arms and maintains a presence in that country by force of arms.

[hardeeharhar]

I think occam is a little slow on the uptake....

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
The English occupied India, America and (still) Northern Ireland. And since you asked for my definition of \\\"occupation\\\": when one country conquers another country by force of arms and maintains a presence in that country by force of arms.

Why shouldn\\\'t the English be allowed to maintain a presence in India, America, Ireland, etc.?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Why shouldn\'t the English be allowed to maintains a presence in India, America, Ireland, etc.?

India: Ask Ghandi.

Ireland: Ask the IRA. And please note I said Northern Ireland, not Ireland.

America: Ask France.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
India: Ask Ghandi.

Ireland: Ask the IRA. And please note I said Northern Ireland, not Ireland.

America: Ask France.


I\'m asking you, you racist bastard!

Why is ok for the IRA to be in Northern Ireland but not the English?
Why is ok for Ghandi to be in India and but the English?
Why is ok for France to be in America but not the English?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I\'m asking you, you racist bastard!

Why is ok for the IRA to be in Northern Ireland but not the English?
Why is ok for Ghandi to be in India and but the English?
Why is ok for France to be in America but not the English?

ah! got it! Please point out where I said that it wasn't OK.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
I think occam is a little slow on the uptake....

Actually, I think occam is either a) making a very, very bad joke that will no doubt wind up in a corner somewhere on fire or b) trying to play a clever little game that's based on an assumption that I've somewhere said it's not OK to occupy another country.

And you know what happens when you assume, occam? You make an "ass" out of "u." ;)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
ah! got it! Please point out where I said that it wasn\'t OK.

You called it an occupation! Implied in that loaded term is that the English should not be there. I\'m asking you why not.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
You called it an occupation! Implied in that loaded term is that the English should not be there. I\'m asking you why not.

Where did I imply anything? I said that England's occupations of India, Northern Ireland and America did not bring stability.

I'd really like it if you'd deal with what I've actually written and not what you seem to wish I had, although I'm sure the debate going on in your head with the imaginary-midwinter is a good one.

[BRussell]

Can someone draw me a venn diagram for this thread?

[midwinter]

I just noticed that I should've added England's invention of and 30-year occupation of "Iraq" to the list.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Where did I imply anything?

It\'s implied by the term itself. The term itself implies illegality and wrong doing. I might be tired and sleepy, but I can still discern the meaning of words.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
It\'s implied by the term itself. The term itself implies illegality and wrong doing. I might be tired and sleepy, but I can still discern the meaning of words.

So the US occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII was illegal and wrong?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
So the US occupation of Germany and Japan after WWII was illegal and wrong?

Ask the Germans and Japanese that fought against it. They would have called it an occupation.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Ask the Germans and Japanese that fought against it. They would have called it an occupation.

Dude, WE call it an occupation (http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/Occ-GY/). It was an occupation. We went in and occupied them. I don't know what kind of bug you have up your ass about the nominative form of "occupy," but I suggest you get it seem to, pronto, before you run around calling military historians at West Point racists for using the term in their courses.

Luckily, I'm not a military historian, so I have no idea what the immediate aftermath of the US occupation of Germany (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=czG&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=US+occupation+of+germany&spell=1) and Japan was. I'm sure there was some limited violence in both, but my sense is that the governments and people of both countries recognized that they'd been defeated (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2003/1109parallel.htm) and there had been formal terms of surrender.

Look. At first, I though this was a joke. Maybe it still is and I'm the butt of it for giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating you civilly. But I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't call me a "racist" simply because you have issues with both vocabulary and history.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by BRussell
Can someone draw me a venn diagram for this thread?

Sure:

http://images.littlemeanfish.com/venn.png

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Dude, WE call it an occupation (http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/Occ-GY/). It was an occupation. We went in and occupied them. I don\'t know what kind of bug you have up your ass about the nominative form of \"occupy,\" but I suggest you get it seem to, pronto, before you run around calling military historians at West Point racists for using the term in their courses.

Luckily, I\'m not a military historian, so I have no idea what the immediate aftermath of the US occupation of Germany (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&hs=czG&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&pwst=1&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=US+occupation+of+germany&spell=1) and Japan was. I\'m sure there was some limited violence in both, but my sense is that the governments and people of both countries recognized that they\'d been defeated (http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/occupation/2003/1109parallel.htm) and there had been formal terms of surrender.

Look. At first, I though this was a joke. Maybe it still is and I\'m the butt of it for giving you the benefit of the doubt and treating you civilly. But I\'d appreciate it if you wouldn\'t call me a \"racist\" simply because you have issues with both vocabulary and history.


Implied in the term Occupation is an interim or temporary possession. The implication is that although at present that is the situation, it should not remain so.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Implied in the term Occupation is an interim or temporary possession. The implication is that although at present that is the situation, it should not remain so.

What is "interim"? What is "temporary"? England occupied Iraq for 30 years and then left. England occupied India for nearly a century and then left. America "officially" occupied Germany for 2 (although we're still there). We've occupied Iraq and Afghanistan for 3 years now. Hell, there are some folks who argue that the American South is an occupied territory (based on a technicality...to enter back into the union, they had to ratify amendments; you can't ratify amendments if you're not in the union). How long did France occupy Vietnam? And then the US? How long did Spain occupy the Phillipines?

The only thing that "occupation" implies, to me, is that one nation-state has taken control of a nation-state and is running it. Saying that it's temporary is just a way of making ourselves feel better about it.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Implied in the term Occupation is an interim or temporary possession. The implication is that although at present that is the situation, it should not remain so.

Mr. Whisker, sir, you're starting to scare the children. Perhaps is you could just say what it is you think?

At the moment it appears to be something like "the country that invades and installs a new government in another country has every bit as much right to those lands as the indiginous locals, and to say otherwise is racist".

Which suggests that to have opposed Iraq's incursion into Iran would be.... racist?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Mr. Whisker, sir, you're starting to scare the children. Perhaps is you could just say what it is you think?

At the moment it appears to be something like "the country that invades and installs a new government in another country has every bit as much right to those lands as the indiginous locals, and to say otherwise is racist".

Which suggests that to have opposed Iraq's incursion into Iran would be.... racist?

NO JUMPING AHEAD! We were just about to get into a discussion of the ways English imperialism was understood in terms of right and obligation.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
What is \"interim\"? What is \"temporary\"?

It means you don\'t get to stay. It means that you will have to leave. I\'m asking you why is that Ok? Why is Ok to kick out the English from America, Iraq, India, Ireland, or wherever else?

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
NO JUMPING AHEAD! We were just about to get into a discussion of the ways English imperialism was understood in terms of right and obligation.

Sorry, sorry.

Carry on.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
It means you don\'t get to stay. It means that you will have to leave. I\'m asking you why is that Ok? Why is Ok to kick out the English from America, Iraq, India, Ireland, or wherever else?

Hi. I'm not the person you're having the debate with in your head.

Howsabout this: instead of asking me questions based on things I didn't say, me explaining patiently that that's not what I said and then painstakingly articulating what I did say, and then you asking me more questions about what I didn't say, why don't you actually say something instead of playing this ridiculous game of "gotcha!"?

Hint: when it's clear that you're playing a game of "Gotcha!" the game is no fun.

Hint hint: when you're playing "Gotcha!" badly, it doesn't work.

Hint hint hint: the debate you're having in your head is with some imaginary version of me, not the actual me.

And as addabox said, you seem to be arguing that when one country invades and occupies another the other country, and everyone else, ought to just STFU and accept it.

Not to invoke Godwin's law or anything, but there are some fine examples from September of 1939 you ought to look into.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Sorry, sorry.

Carry on.

You givin' me lip?! Don't make me come overe there and occupy your ass, math-boy.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
You givin' me lip?! Don't make me come overe there and occupy your ass, math-boy.

MIght as well-- there doesn't seem to be a thread in the area that hasn't careened into the weeds.

Tell you what: occupy at will but bring keyboards.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
MIght as well-- there doesn't seem to be a thread in the area that hasn't careened into the weeds.

Tell you what: occupy at will but bring keyboards.

heh. in my head, for just a second, flashed an image of a machine that would provide BOTH beverages and keyboards for when people spit on them.

There may be a market.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Hi. I\'m not the person you\'re having the debate with in your head.

Howsabout this: instead of asking me questions based on things I didn\'t say, me explaining patiently that that\'s not what I said and then painstakingly articulating what I did say, and then you asking me more questions about what I didn\'t say, why don\'t you actually say something instead of playing this ridiculous game of \"gotcha!\"?

Hint: when it\'s clear that you\'re playing a game of \"Gotcha!\" the game is no fun.

Hint hint: when you\'re playing \"Gotcha!\" badly, it doesn\'t work.

Hint hint hint: the debate you\'re having in your head is with some imaginary version of me, not the actual me.

And as addabox said, you seem to be arguing that when one country invades and occupies another the other country, and everyone else, ought to just STFU and accept it.

Not to invoke Godwin\'s law or anything, but there are some fine examples from September of 1939 you ought to look into.


Yes, I\'m playing \"Gotcha!\" Badly? Perhaps. But as badly as I\'m playing at this late hour, I notice that you still aren\'t able to give a straight answer to some very simple questions.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
heh. in my head, for just a second, flashed an image of a machine that would provide BOTH beverages and keyboards for when people spit on them.

There may be a market.

Not just a market, but a self-refreshing one at that!

By the way, have you been getting extra rest from teachering? Cause you seem to be at the top of your game.

[addabox]

Oh, sorry, I forgot about the cage match.

I'll take my answer off the air, thanks.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Yes, I\'m playing \"Gotcha!\" Badly? Perhaps. But as badly as I\'m playing at this late hour, I notice that you still aren\'t able to give a straight answer to some very simple questions.

I haven't seen you ask a "simple question" based on something I've actually said yet.

You did ask me why it's OK for England to get kicked out of India, which I never said anything about, either. And so instead of defending a statement I never made, I asked you to just come out with it and advance an opinion rather than play this ridiculous game of gotcha.

So here you go:

Why was it wrong for Germany to invade Poland in 1939?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Not just a market, but a self-refreshing one at that!

By the way, have you been getting extra rest from teachering? Cause you seem to be at the top of your game.

Actually, I'm teachering this summer to make a little extra $$$, which is far superior to nearly getting blowed up in London.

Although aside from the nearly getting blowed up, being paid to be in London working for a few weeks was mighty nice.

Once I'm a little further into my current project, I'll start another thread about it. You've seen the first taste already: privacy.

[FormerLurker]

Sometimes, the keyboard needs a skin (a "condom", if you will) - whether it is to protect against beverage spills and spits, or against infection from the virulently noxious content being typed on it.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Sometimes, the keyboard needs a skin (a "condom", if you will) - whether it is to protect against beverage spills and spits, or against infection from the virulently noxious content being typed on it.

I prefer the term from the 18th century: armor.

Seriously. I shit you not.

[addabox]

"Wait! Before we go on......have you armor?"

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
"Wait! Before we go on......have you armor?"


TUESDAY 17 MAY,
1763
I sauntered up and down all this forenoon, and dined with Lord Eglinton, where was Sir James, who said he wondered how I could complain of being miserable who had always such a flow of spirits. Melancholy cannot be clearly proved to others, so it is better to be silent about it. I should have been at Lady Northumberland's rout tonight, but my barber fell sick; so I sallied to the streets, and just at the bottom of our own, I picked up a fresh, agreeable young girl called Alice Gibbs. We went down a lane to a snug place, and I took out my armour, but she begged that I might not put it on, as the sport was much pleasanter without it, and as she was quite safe. I was so rash as to trust her, and had a very agreeable congress.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
I haven\'t seen you ask a \"simple question\" based on something I\'ve actually said yet.

You did ask me why it\'s OK for England to get kicked out of India, which I never said anything about, either. And so instead of defending a statement I never made, I asked you to just come out with it and advance an opinion rather than play this ridiculous game of gotcha.

So here you go:

Why was it wrong for Germany to invade Poland in 1939?


The Poles would say it was wrong because they didn\'t want them there. They would have called the Germans, Invaders and Occupiers. Those are obviously loaded terms, which imply that the Germans shouldn\'t be there.

I\'m asking you why shouldn’t the Germans be allowed there? It’s a simple question. Answer!

[FormerLurker]

armor de amor

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I\'m asking you why shouldn’t the Germans be allowed there? It’s a simple question. Answer!

Because the Poles didn't want them there?

Did I win? Is that the right answer? Can we advance to step two in the gotcha game where you deftly play this back with some ingenious comparison to another invasion/conquest/occupation that's taken completely out of context?

[addabox]

God I love this thread. It's like a scene out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
God I love this thread. It's like a scene out of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest

I was thinking more 12 Monkeys, but Kesey works. ;)

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Because the Poles didn\'t want them there?

Did I win? Is that the right answer? Can we advance to step two in the gotcha game where you deftly play this back with some ingenious comparison to another invasion/conquest/occupation that\'s taken completely out of context?


Are you Polish? Why are you answering subjectively as a Pole? I\'m asking you a question I\'d like answered from an objective point of view.

[FormerLurker]

Should the One be allowed to fly over the nest?

Or is it a no-fly zone?

[addabox]

Better and better. Maybe we can get the math guys from the paradox thread to come over. I think they're starting to twitch.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Are you Polish? Why are you answering subjectively as a Pole? I\'m asking you a question I\'d like answered from an objective point of view.

Are you Polish? Why are you claiming to know whether or not I'm "answering subjectively as a Pole"? How do you know how a Pole would answer? Moreover, how do you know how a Pole in September, 1939 would answer?

Would you please make a fucking point? I answered your question. You're supposed to jump out from behind a bush and say "GOTCHA! THE POLES ACTUALLY WANTED THE GERMANS TO INVADE!" or something.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
Better and better. Maybe we can get the math guys from the paradox thread to come over. I think they're starting to twitch.

Well, technically, no country can ever invade another country....

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well, technically, no country can ever invade another country....

Then perhaps they can assert their inalienable right to storm the thread and demand that we quantify our terms via tensor analysis, as is the custom in their realms.

[FormerLurker]

Technically, we have not occupied Iraq yet.

We are only 99.44% of the way there.

[addabox]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
Technically, we have not occupied Iraq yet.

We are only 99.44% of the way there.

It is a mystery. If the distance to freedom is an infinite series of 6 month intervals, converging on civil war, how can Iraq be said to truly exist?

"Bobo's paradox".

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
It is a mystery. If the distance to freedom is an infinite series of 6 month intervals, converging on civil war, how can Iraq be said to truly exist?

"Bobo's paradox".

BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Are you marking your calendar with these 6 month intervals, too?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Are you Polish? Why are you claiming to know whether or not I\'m \"answering subjectively as a Pole\"? How do you know how a Pole would answer? Moreover, how do you know how a Pole in September, 1939 would answer?

Would you please make a fucking point? I answered your question. You\'re supposed to jump out from behind a bush and say \"GOTCHA! THE POLES ACTUALLY WANTED THE GERMANS TO INVADE!\" or something.


Well, here\'s what I\'m trying to get at. If \"Americans\" decided they didn\'t want any \"Latinos\" coming over the border without their consent, as is the case now, is it not racist for \"Americans\" to single out \"Latinos\" as unwelcome in \"America\"?

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by midwinter
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Are you marking your calendar with these 6 month intervals, too? A logarithmic calendar would be very helpful.

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA. Are you marking your calendar with these 6 month intervals, too?

Hell yeah. It's the light at the end of tunnel!

[FormerLurker]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Well, here\'s what I\'m trying to get at. If \"Americans\" decided they didn\'t want any \"Latinos\" coming over the border without their consent, as is the case now, is it not racist for \"Americans\" to single out \"Latinos\" as unwelcome in \"America\"? So, then... we're failing to repulse an unarmed "occupation" of our country, at the same time we're failing to control an armed "occupation" of a country half a world away?

Brilliant!

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Well, here\'s what I\'m trying to get at. If \"Americans\" decided they didn\'t want any \"Latinos\" coming over the border without their consent, as is the case now, is it not racist for \"Americans\" to single out \"Latinos\" as unwelcome in \"America\"?

You're kidding.

All of that was to set up the idea that not wanting to seal the Mexican border is the equivalent of indiscriminate approval of the Raj and the invasion of Poland?

I love you!

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Why are you claiming to know whether or not I\'m \"answering subjectively as a Pole\"? How do you know how a Pole would answer? Moreover, how do you know how a Pole in September, 1939 would answer?


Because it\'s a matter of historical record.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by addabox
You\'re kidding.

All of that was to set up the idea that not wanting to seal the Mexican border is the equivalent of indiscriminate approval of the Raj and the invasion of Poland?

I love you!


The name of the actors is irrelevant.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Well, here\'s what I\'m trying to get at. If \"Americans\" decided they didn\'t want any \"Latinos\" coming over the border without their consent, as is the case now, is it not racist for \"Americans\" to single out \"Latinos\" as unwelcome in \"America\"?

OK. Now we're getting somewhere (and I hope the mods don't lock this thread now that we've finally gotten somewhere).

Here's the problem:

1) "Latinos" (and the term, as I understand it, is derogatory. The appropriate term is "Hispanic"...can someone set me straight on this?) are not occupying America by any stretch of the imagination.

2) Illegal immigrants are not coming over the border, armed, with the intention of forcibly taking over the native government and setting up a new government friendly to their goals.

3) I don't believe in "race" as a real category. Maybe I'm naive in this, but I don't. I see "racism" as a subset of classism.

4) To compare illegal immigrants sneaking into America looking for work with Germany militarily invading, conquering and occupying Poland is assinine and denigrates the memory of every single human being who fought against those NAZI bastards.

5) Is the current anti-illegal-immigrant fervor racist? To a degree. To other degrees it's not. To say "We don't want any Latinos coming over our border" is racist. To say "We don't want any illegal immigrants coming over our borders" is not. To say "We don't want any Latinos coming over our border without our consent" is racist, because it singles out a specific group of people while not seeming to single out anyone else.

6) Here's the real problem: people move around. Always have. Don't believe me? That's what Dracula is about: eastern European immigrants coming in and infecting good English blood.

7) You can't stop people from moving around unless you're a real bastard.

8) We tend to recognize the sovereign status of nation-states and their ability to self-determine, whether we agree with them or not.

9) Illegal immigrants are not a nation.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
You're kidding.

All of that was to set up the idea that not wanting to seal the Mexican border is the equivalent of indiscriminate approval of the Raj and the invasion of Poland?

I love you!

Yeah. What was it I said? hmmmm....

[flashback sound effect]


Can we advance to step two in the gotcha game where you deftly play this back with some ingenious comparison to another invasion/conquest/occupation that's taken completely out of context?


[/flashback sound effect]

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. Now we\'re getting somewhere (and I hope the mods don\'t lock this thread now that we\'ve finally gotten somewhere).

Here\'s the problem:

1) \"Latinos\" (and the term, as I understand it, is derogatory. The appropriate term is \"Hispanic\"...can someone set me straight on this?) are not occupying America by any stretch of the imagination.

2) Illegal immigrants are not coming over the border, armed, with the intention of forcibly taking over the native government and setting up a new government friendly to their goals.

3) I don\'t believe in \"race\" as a real category. Maybe I\'m naive in this, but I don\'t. I see \"racism\" as a subset of classism.

4) To compare illegal immigrants sneaking into America looking for work with Germany militarily invading, conquering and occupying Poland is assinine and denigrates the memory of every single human being who fought against those NAZI bastards.

5) Is the current anti-illegal-immigrant fervor racist? To a degree. To other degrees it\'s not. To say \"We don\'t want any Latinos coming over our border\" is racist. To say \"We don\'t want any illegal immigrants coming over our borders\" is not. To say \"We don\'t want any Latinos coming over our border without our consent\" is racist, because it singles out a specific group of people while not seeming to single out anyone else.

6) Here\'s the real problem: people move around. Always have. Don\'t believe me? That\'s what Dracula is about: eastern European immigrants coming in and infecting good English blood.

7) You can\'t stop people from moving around unless you\'re a real bastard.

8) We tend to recognize the sovereign status of nation-states and their ability to self-determine, whether we agree with them or not.

9) Illegal immigrants are not a nation.


Whether these people are armed or not is irrelevant. They are coming anyway. They might as well be armed because the situation is out of your hands. Now what happens if that population exerts dominance and you\'re still powerless to do anything about it. Has the situation become one of a de-facto occupation? Is Ok to have these people kicked out?

[addabox]

Originally posted by midwinter
Yeah. What was it I said? hmmmm....

[flashback sound effect]


[/flashback sound effect]

For future reference, the flashback sound effect is rendered thusly:

Doo-de-diddley Doo-de-diddley Doo-de-diddley

If you want you can raise and lower your hands while wiggling your fingers, but when posting on the internet that is considered just sad.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Whether these people are armed or not is irrelevant. They are coming anyway. They might as well be armed because the situation is out of your hands. Now what happens if that population exhorts dominance and you\'re still powerless to do anything about it. Has the situation become one of a de-facto occupation? Is Ok to have these people kicked out?

Whether the people are armed is the difference between an occupation and people just moving around.

And they might not as well be armed. It's not the same thing. At all.

For that population to exert dominance would be, so far as I know, unprecedented in the history of the world. The dominant/elite culture has mechanisms for keeping "undesirables" in their place and effectively powerless.

It is only OK to have those people kicked out if you think Hitler is the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
For future reference, the flashback sound effect is rendered thusly:

Doo-de-diddley Doo-de-diddley Doo-de-diddley

If you want you can raise and lower your hands while wiggling your fingers, but when posting on the internet that is considered just sad.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
It is only OK to have those people kicked out if you think Hitler is the kind of guy you\'d like to have a beer with.


So the Latinos/Hispanics stay. But the English, they must go. Thanks for the racist reply.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
So the Latinos/Hispanics stay. But the English, they must go. Thanks for the racist reply.

Dear People of England,

You are now a race. Please adjust your schedules accordingly.

Cheers
Midwinter


PS

I'm having another flashback moment where an equivalency is being drawn between the English military occupation of the rebel colonies after independence had been declared and some poor sap sneaking across the Rio Grande to to look for a job in Brownesville.

PPS

Doo-de-diddley Doo-de-diddley Doo-de-diddley


Can we advance to step two in the gotcha game where you deftly play this back with some ingenious comparison to another invasion/conquest/occupation that's taken completely out of context?

PPPS

Calling people a racist is really easy if you redefine the term to mean whatever you want.

PPPPS

See points 2 and 8 above.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Dear People of England,

You are now a race. Please adjust your schedules accordingly.

Cheers

From Wiki:

The United Nations uses a definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life..


By that definition you are clearly a Racist.

[FormerLurker]

would it be racist of me to call OW a troll?

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
From Wiki:

The United Nations uses a definition of racial discrimination laid out in the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and adopted in 1966:

...any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life..


By that definition you are clearly a Racist.

You might want to look up what a "nation" is, while you're at it.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by FormerLurker
would it be racist of me to call OW a troll?

Nope. I just can't believe all of that was so s/he could publicly fail to see the difference between a military occupation of a country and immigration and make a fool out of himself just so he could call me a racist for arguing that nations have the right to self-determination and the right to attempt to repulse an invader.

He clearly hates America.

[occam whisker]

Let’s be clear. When the English want to become part of India, it was Ok to later exclude them by force -- condemn them as colonizers invaders occupiers, and have them kicked out. When someone else with a different national ethnic background assumes the role of colonizer, invader, occupier, it becomes perfectly acceptable. To me this is a clear case of discrimination based of national ethnic background, i.e. Racism.

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Let’s be clear. When the English want to become part of India, it was Ok to later exclude them by force -- condemn them as colonizers invaders occupiers, and have them kicked out. When someone else with a different national ethnic background assumes the role of colonizer, invader, occupier, it becomes perfectly acceptable. To me this is a clear case of discrimination based of national ethnic background, i.e. Racism.

You're trapped, right? You must realize that you've pretty much wandered into crazy town, but you can't stop arguing.

It's some kind of gypsy curse, is that it? You're obliged to propose and defend insane propositions until the end of time, even as crowds gather and point and throw things, and your responses become increasingly strange and disturbingly not of this world?

Find the gypsies. Beg forgiveness for whatever it is you have done. It's not too late.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Let’s be clear.

Groovy. That would rock.

When the English want to become part of India, it was Ok to later exclude them by force -- condemn them as colonizers invaders occupiers, and have them kicked out.

OK. A couple of problems here. The English didn't want to become part of India. They wanted to make India a part of England. Germany did not want to become part of Poland. It wanted Poland to become a part of it.

When someone else with a different national ethnic background assumes the role of colonizer, invader, occupier, it becomes perfectly acceptable. To me this is a clear case of discrimination based of national ethnic background, i.e. Racism.

Please clarify what "it" is in the quoted passage.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by addabox
It's some kind of gypsy curse, is that it? You're obliged to propose and defend insane propositions until the end of time, even as crowds gather and point and throw things, and your responses become increasingly strange and disturbingly not of this world?

Find the gypsies. Beg forgiveness for whatever it is you have done. It's not too late.

OK, California-math-nerd-boy....let's NOT GIVE HOLLYWOOD ANY IDEAS.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Please clarify what \"it\" is in the quoted passage.

\"It\" becomes perfectly acceptable, when Spanish becomes the de facto language in California, and California becomes de facto State of Mexico.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. A couple of problems here. The English didn\'t want to become part of India. They wanted to make India a part of England. Germany did not want to become part of Poland. It wanted Poland to become a part of it.


If millions of Chinese sneak across the border to Tibet and change Tibet into a de facto Chinese State, is that Ok? If millions of jihadi Muslim sneak across the Israeli border to try and change Israel into a de facto Jihadistani State, is that Ok? Why is it Ok for millions of Mexicans to sneak across the border to California and change California into a de facto Mexican State? What is the difference if the invaders, occupiers, colonizers, use armed force or not. If you are rendered politically powerless to do anything about it, the effect is the same.

[Fireball1244]

Originally posted by occam whisker
\"It\" becomes perfectly acceptable, when Spanish becomes the de facto language in California, and California becomes de facto State of Mexico.

How precisely would California become a de facto part of Mexico? Would it suddenly begin paying Mexican taxes? Would Californians suddenly not be issued American passports? The language question is irrelevant -- our history is full of regions of the country and areas of states where languages other than English have been the dominant form of communication; in our history we've had regions where German, Chinese, Italian and French were all spoken with more regularity than English without those citizens ever being any less American than their anglophonic compatriots.

An occupation implies an armed invasion force that forcefully overthrows the local government and kills those who oppose its control. Nothing like that is happening in the United States because of our immigration situation regarding Mexico.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Fireball1244
An occupation implies an armed invasion force that forcefully overthrows the local government and kills those who oppose its control. Nothing like that is happening in the United States because of our immigration situation regarding Mexico.

If you slip a Mickey into someone’s drink and then proceed to rape their ass as you render them helpless to resist, is it still considered rape? These Mexicans migrants slipped a Mickey into the political system by way of the Farm Lobby, and in effect rendered the political system helpless to resist their invasion occupation colonialization.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Fireball1244
How precisely would California become a de facto part of Mexico? Would it suddenly begin paying Mexican taxes? Would Californians suddenly not be issued American passports? The language question is irrelevant -- our history is full of regions of the country and areas of states where languages other than English have been the dominant form of communication; in our history we\\\'ve had regions where German, Chinese, Italian and French were all spoken with more regularity than English without those citizens ever being any less American than their anglophonic compatriots.

It’s very simple. When law enforcement officers no longer enforce the law, a state ceases to function as a state. It is obvious that the law is not being enforced in California when it comes to illegal Latinos. As a result, there’s a huge migration out of the state because law-abiding citizens are tired of being penalized for this lack of law enforcement. In effect, the illegal Mexican migration is driving legal citizens out. Couple that with Mexican retention of cultural and national identification, and you’ve in effect created a de facto Mexican state.

You can see a similar pattern in Europe where Muslim migrants create de facto mini states within their European host countries. Police and law enforcement simple do no exist in those areas, and non-Muslim on the whole no longer venture there. As Muslim reproduction rate is a multiple of that of non Muslims in Europe, many have speculated that Europe within a generation or two will become Eurabia--an Islamic domain, bereft to its White Judeo Christian heritage.

[hardeeharhar]

*bullshit*

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
*bullshit*

:rolleyes:

Nice retort.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Oh please.

Your argument extends no further than characterization-- and a dubious one at that.

Where further should it go?

[midwinter]

A Race War is, of course, inevitable.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
A Race War is, of course, inevitable.

A war is where the situation is headed. You can\'t have studies history, even recent history, and not concede this point.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
A war is where the situation is headed. You can\'t have studies history, even recent history, and not concede this point.

So who do you think the race war will be between?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
So who do you think the race war will be between?

I think it\'s already happening. It\'s an undeclared war, but the end results are the same. Once the population breaks from the Liberal spell the MSM has put on it, people might wise up, and it might become a declared war or a more visible conflict.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I think it\'s already happening. It\'s an undeclared war, but the end results are the same. Once the population breaks from the Liberal spell the MSM has put on it, people might wise up, and it might become a declared war or a more visible conflict.

OK. But between who and who? Whites will declare war on Mexico?

[hardeeharhar]

I personally don't know what the Morehouse School of Medicine has to do with any of this, but if you want a war between the races why don't you go get your ass kicked by some migrant workers?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
OK. But between who and who? Whites will declare war on Mexico?

I would call them \"Anglos\" -- they\'re not all \"White\". And yes, I think Mexico will become involved.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I would call them \"Anglos\" -- they\'re not all \"White\". And yes, I think Mexico will become involved.

Well how do you think this war between the Anglos and the non-Anglos will play out? What's your vision?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Well how do you think this war between the Anglos and the non-Anglos will play out? What\\\'s your vision?

I\\\'d rather that it not \\\'play out\\\'. I\\\'d rather that Racists like yourself be called on their Racism, so that the law is applied equally and we can avoid hostilities as a result of the inequity created by not applying the law when specific ethic national groups are involved.

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
I\\\'d rather that it not \\\'play out\\\'. I\\\'d rather that Racists like yourself be called on their Racism, so that the law is applied equally and we can avoid hostilities as a result of the inequity created by not applying the law when specific ethic national groups are involved.

Happy 4th of July to you, too.

Listen. Since you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between "military occupation" and "illegal immigration" in this bizarre game you've been playing that has had no other effect whatsoever than to make you look like a complete and utter dumbass, I'll lay out the difference for you:

If I break into your house and put a gun to your head and force you to suck my dick whenever I want, that's an occupation. You're bitching about people coming into the country and stealing our good American dick-sucking jobs.

And again, best wishes on this day when Americans celebrate their independence from an regime that demanded no end of dick-sucking at the point of a gun.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Happy 4th of July to you, too.

Listen. Since you seem to be incapable of understanding the difference between \\\"military occupation\\\" and \\\"illegal immigration\\\" in this bizarre game you\\\'ve been playing that has had no other effect whatsoever than to make you look like a complete and utter dumbass, I\\\'ll lay out the difference for you:

If I break into your house and put a gun to your head and force you to suck my dick whenever I want, that\\\'s an occupation. You\\\'re bitching about people coming into the country and stealing our good American dick-sucking jobs.

And again, best wishes on this day when Americans celebrate their independence from an regime that demanded no end of dick-sucking at the point of a gun.


See my reply at the very end of page 3. Though it deals with forced anal rape, I think it is a more appropriate description of the situation Americans are now facing because of the Racist progressive liberal attitude you and other liberal \"progressives\" inform.

[audiopollution]

Originally posted by occam whisker
See my reply at the very end of page 3. Though it deals with forced anal rape, I think it is a more appropriate description of the situation Americans are now facing because of the Racist progressive liberal attitude you and other liberal \"progressives\" inform.

Are you the guy on YouTube who was complaining about the rogue helicopter pilot?

[addabox]

Originally posted by occam whisker
See my reply at the very end of page 3. Though it deals with forced anal rape, I think it is a more appropriate description of the situation Americans are now facing because of the Racist progressive liberal attitude you and other liberal \"progressives\" inform.

MIdwinter sees your drugged anal rape and raises you dick-sucking at gun point. You're going to have to do better than stand pat.

Did I mention I love this thread?

[Kickaha]

OMG, occam whisker, I want to bear your illegitimate mongoloid drooling children. (I assume your superior genes would dominate.)

This is the first AO/PO thread I've read in three years because I just couldn't deal with the place, but I was sucked back in here by the comedy.

Bless you. I needed a good belly laugh today.

[addabox]

By the way, as a resident of California, a couple of things:

There is an out-migration, but most of it is due to the absolutely psychotic housing market. A small, two bedroom bungalow down the street from me (here in Oakland, for fuck's sake) just went on the market for $800,000.

Virtually no one can afford to buy a new home here, except the super affluent and the grossly over-leveraged. The bay area is the worst, but long time residents state wide have long since discovered that cashing in the equity on their fantastically appreciated homes buys a boat load of livin' in, say, Nevada or Arizona. Plus, the population centers in LA and the bay area are the kind of heavy "old" urban that people leave (if they have the means) for the pleasanter "new urban" environs of, say, Phoenix.

Maybe you can explain how an influx of immigrants and white flight drives a speculative housing market out of reach for even the solidly middle class, much less the newly arrived dirt poor?

And it's odd, don't you think, that people fleeing the brown hoards would choose to flee to states that, themselves, have large and growing immigrant populations and much of the same controversy surrounding the matter as California?

As far as the idea that Hispanic enclaves are "lawless", on account of how the rule of law breaks down once you stop vigorously enforcing immigration controls: jesus christ dude, get a grip.

The central and south american immigrants in California are more family centered and socially conservative than the average anglo already here. They don't start roaming the streets preying on hapless whitey, they work really long hours at really shitty jobs so they can have enough money to support a family.

Now, can California support a doubled or tripled population and no suffer severe declines in quality of life for most of its residents? Probably not.

But the reasons for that have very simply to do with overcrowding, and nothing to do with the character of recent immigrants or some transformation of California into a "defacto Mexican state".

So if you want to worry about immigration, worry about net population densities in a given area and if the existing or planned infrastructure can reasonably be expected to support same, in an area of constrained affordable housing and water resources. Those are perfectly legitimate things to talk about, when you talk about immigration. Urban planning. Population growth. Infrastructure. High impact density.

Talk of "occupation" and "lawlessness" "take-overs" is just racial anxiety moving to racial panic, which ends up being plain old garden variety racism.
Believe me, California could do worse than to have a very large or even majority Hispanic population.

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by Kickaha
OMG, occam whisker, I want to bear your illegitimate mongoloid drooling children. (I assume your superior genes would dominate.)

This is the first AO/PO thread I\\\'ve read in three years because I just couldn\\\'t deal with the place, but I was sucked back in here by the comedy.

Bless you. I needed a good belly laugh today.



Glad to have obliged. Couldn\\\'t have done it without midwinter being a good sport about it all, and playing it straight.

Happy 4th of July! And may your Schwartz be as big as mine!

[midwinter]

Originally posted by occam whisker
Glad to have obliged. Couldn\\\'t have done it without midwinter being a good sport about it all, and playing it straight.

Happy 4th of July! And may your Schwartz be as big as mine!

Glad to be of assistance. ;)

WHat the hell is up with your \\\s?

[occam whisker]

Originally posted by midwinter
Glad to be of assistance. ;)

WHat the hell is up with your \\\\\\\\\\\\s?

Browser gets excited when he sees a cute quotation...
Edit: or an apostate fiend, er,.. I mean apostrophe.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

This is Mika. This man got very uptight about Canada's need to protect itself from the expansionist, imperialist... Norwegians.

It's OK. Enjoy.

[New]

Wow, I just read this thread... words... where are my words...!?!

:lol: