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.
One must assimilate to become American. This multi-cultural division is sadly becoming anti-American. If you become a citizen , you are an American first. This is the purpose of this country. Not a bunch of countries in America.
Except that this concept was originally only meant to encompass European immigrants, which was a feasible integration goal. It was later spun to imply everyone, which is demonstrably not a feasible integration goal.
Extreme multiculturalism essentially broke the concept of America.
I guess the native Americans can attest to that, with the europeans........
You mean the sparse inhabitants of a major continent, who attacked settlers mercilessly, but who were later given their own territories and means of becoming wealthy many times over?
Do you think that this continent would have been left as a large reservation should Europeans not have settled it?
What do you think that the Chinese would have done to the Natives, instead?
Here's a hint:
In spite of India being on the doorstep of China, you don't see many / any Indians settled in China in spite of thousands of years of being neighbors.
Think about how that almost unbelievable feat of ethnic separation took / takes place.
It's not because the Chinese ask nicely.
Turning over the wooded areas around the Chinese / Indian border might be telling.
Except the real number would be more like two billion. More than five billion people live in countries poorer than Mexico. How many of them do you think would move here if we let them?
All of them.
The only thing that keeps this world from becoming a communist labor camp, full of too many workers and that is ruled by an iron fisted overclass that can't be overthrown, is borders.
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:
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.
Your VERDICT is silly.
The NYT ran an ad that offers up one of the arguments advocating a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The NYT editorial board did not advocate either way. And presenting multiple positions on an issue, which the NYT has done via advertising, editorials, guest writers and regular journalist contributions is exactly what a national newspaper does and should do.
Oh, there is a blending process alright. I have noticed that every year more and more white people are marrying or breeding outside their race.
So, sooner or later, mixed race people are going to be the majority.
Wow, karma and miscegenation are something else!
It's nice to know that you resent white people, in general, as being deserving of a certain fate.
I'm curious to know if we could apply an such group condemnation to your group. I bet you that we could find a thing or two to justify it, using your standards. Still want to play this game?
The NYT ran an ad that offers up one of the arguments advocating a two-state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian situation. The NYT editorial board did not advocate either way. And presenting multiple positions on an issue, which the NYT has done via advertising, editorials, guest writers and regular journalist contributions is exactly what a national newspaper does and should do.
Utter and complete BS.
It offered a full page advertisement with no editorial comment at the time.
Did you read the advertisement??
It specifically and simply advocates for ethnic separation simply because Jews do not want to be a minority, and want their own state. It was not an argument that was any more complicated than that.
If that's an argument, then David Duke's positions are also arguments that the NYT should give equal time to. Do they, or don't they?
Imagine if David Duke wanted to run a full page advertisement in the NYT that made the "argument" that white people were polled and want to maintain a majority, and to arrive at that outcome then they will have to be separated from minorities.
Would the NYT run the ad, let alone with no editorial comment on it?
Your spin is what is utterly silly.
You think that people do not take note of these double standards, which completely deprive the NYT of any type of moral platform, but we do.
It also reflects poorly, in the public eye, on those that would defend such a double standard.
It offered a full page advertisement with no editorial comment at the time.
Did you read the advertisement??
It specifically and simply advocates for ethnic separation simply because Jews do not want to be a minority, and want their own state. It was not an argument that was any more complicated than that.
If that's an argument, then David Duke's positions are also arguments that the NYT should give equal time to. Do they, or don't they?
Imagine of David Duke wanted to run a full page advertisement in the NYT that made the "argument" that white people were polled and want to maintain a majority, and to arrive at that outcome then they will have to be separated from minorities.
Would the NYT run the ad, let alone with no editorial comment on it?
Your spin is what is utterly silly.
You think that people do not take note of these double standards, which completely deprive the NYT of any type of moral platform, but we do.
It also reflects poorly, in the public eye, on those that would defend such a double standard.
It doesn't have to offer up editorial comment at the time.
It presented an argument.
David Duke's positions are also arguments. The NYT has no obligation to give them equal time. However, Mr Duke is free to purchase advertising space if he can afford it.
As for the Israeli/Palestinian situation, it's not race driven. The desire to maintain a majority in Israel is about security, not about race.
Which is why your argument is silly. Because you don't see the distinctions, and because, more importantly, you don't want to. And you don't even see the irony of your posts, that you are trying to take to task the NYT on its morality, while you are defending bigotry.
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.
