Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know about this 1965 immigration policy, how long has it been since any white immigrants came to America? We let plenty of Somalians come here, enough to change the election results in MN from what would have been a Trump state, to Hillary. I think it might be a good idea to give the 5 million white South Africans a blanket immigration pass and welcome them to Iowa, and other states like MN, WI, MI, OH, PA, and perhaps Nevada & Colorado.
He's saying that America should be a white only country.
I don't really like discussing racial politics, but this one's pretty obvious. Now, he personally may not be racist, but his constituents are. Now, I've lived in Iowa so I know a bit about the racism there. You won't notice it unless you've been there for a while. It's very lutheran, as in they will not openly say anything, but it's not hard to figure out what they're thinking. Point being, King's rhetoric is being planted in fertile Iowa racist farmland. The problem is that the current racism is fairly benign. Ultimately, you can be a racial minority in Iowa and be safe. The rhetoric threatens that.
It should continue to be a a majority White Country, but there needs to be an increase in the White birth rate.
Nothing complicated about that. All Nations and cultures are aware of these racial ratios.
South Africa, Saudia Arabia and Japan come to mind.
In the article, the NYT Editorial Board calls Rep King a racist. They claim that it is Mr. King who is not assimilating to liberal values, and not the immigrants who fail to assimilate. They link Rep King to an overall Trump adminstration theme of "ethnocentrism and xenophobia". They claim that the Wall and the deportation surge will hurt the economy. They blame the overall tone for (largely unsolved or liberal perpetrated) threats against minorities. They say that Mr. King matters because of this.
Now, let's look at the NYT on September 2nd, 2016.
On this date, the NYT printed a full page ad that promotes ethnic segregation in Israel.
The ad states:
Quote:
According to a recent poll, 97% of Israeli Jews want to live in a Jewish State. Without a two-state solution, Israel will end up as a binational state: half-Jewish, half-Arab
...
Separation today means a Jewish majority state of Israel now and for generations ahead.
The NYT had a choice as to whether or not it would print an ad that promoted ethnic separation; and moreover one that promoted it for the specific reason that "Jews want to live in a Jewish State".
It would never print an ad that promoted ethnic apartheid in the United States, which would go far beyond Rep. King's sentiment.
Yet, in spite of the NYT objecting to Rep. King's comments on moral grounds, it has no issue with printing a full page ad that promotes ethnic separation in Israel.
Verdict:
The NYT has no moral position when it comes to race or ethnicity. It simply adjusts and wields its support for different positions as they fulfill or don't fulfill their various agendas.
Thus, they are unfit to lecture anyone on this topic.
When commenting on either side of the politics of race, they will inevitably be hypocritical, they should be held to be manipulative, and they should be held to be entirely agenda driven in a manner that is apart from any foundation in a universal morality.
Basically, what this guy commented on was culture and preserving the culture he appreciated.
In return, his comments were referred to a racist with the cryptic statements that we "know what he means".
Sorry, that's skeevy and in this thread really political overtones where that stuff has lost it's value because good old Bernie Sanders got hit with that crap too....and so did Bill and Hillary in 2008. The Sharks been jumped, you cannot just put words in peoples mouths and claim it's what they meant to say or implied.
Just like Mayor Nagin in New Orleans got lambasted by rightwingers for calling New Orleans a Chocolate City.
So many out of political leanings are basically a bunch of divisive nutters looking to spot anything they can to validate their side. Just look at the thread title "republican". When Cynthia McKinney (D) lost re-election they blamed "the jewish media" We can cite hundreds of bad actions by nutters of either party.
Yet here the new meme is that Trump is suddenly responsible for all the divisiveness and hate crimes?
The reaction to King is so extreme because the prevailing liberal orthodox view is so extreme, and it's almost never challenged by anyone within the establishment. All critics can do is yell, "Nazi!", because they literally have nothing else.
Quote:
Blair Nathan observed of King’s remarkably effective remark:
The fact that it is so clearly, axiomatically true is why it’s controversial!... They’ve never had to express their first principles on the national question, which most Americans reject out of hand. Now people like Trump and King are forcing them to articulate what, in principle, they actually believe. So they have to say “America doesn’t belong to American citizens,” and they’re upset because they know American citizens disagree.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The NYT's hypocrisy on Rep. Steve King and the topic of Race
