U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 07:39 PM
 
3,830 posts, read 756,216 times
Reputation: 2735

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
Omar is not White, she's a Somali. Rashida is a Palestinian, and while some Palestinians can look "White", Rashida does not, she looks part Black. I'm guessing part of her ancestry is from Gaza, hence she has Egyptian in her (some Black blood). Look at her nose and lips. No one thinks "White woman" with that mug.
No, you're wrong. I despise her as much as you do, but she is Caucasian. Being a Somali or Palestinian is her nationality or ethnicity. She probably self-identifies as a POC, but it's really just another case of a self-loathing Liberal Caucasian. As I mentioned, she may have some Negroid ancestors, but she is primarily white.

 
Old Yesterday, 08:13 PM
 
Location: New York Area
16,257 posts, read 6,416,188 times
Reputation: 12548
Quote:
Originally Posted by jojajn View Post
No hostility to the people, just don't like how Israel is treating the Palestinians.

Are you saying we have to blindly agree with and love everything Israel does or else we are antisemitic?
We don't like the double standards as much as you don't like how Israel is treating unprovoked butchers.
 
Old Yesterday, 08:38 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ/Amagansett, NY
11,242 posts, read 10,310,602 times
Reputation: 7922
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
The 1924-1964 law restricted by national origin relative to who was in the US. It only restricted Eastern Europeans and Southern Europeans to the degree they were already represented in the US. It makes perfect sense to me to maintain the balance.
Already represented not in the current time of 1924, but back in 1890, before the influx of Jews and Catholics.

Quote:
Quotas for specific countries were based on 2% of the U.S. population from that country as recorded in 1890.[2] As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles and other Slavs.[1][3][4]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

That is what probably pissed off Senator Hart (a Catholic) and Emanuel Celler (a Jewish congressman) enough to write the 1965 act. So part of the blame goes to the 1924 congress. Celler was in office at the time, and he was one of the few “no” votes. I would bet if it had been done more fairly in 1924, there wouldn’t have been the urgency to change it in 1965.
 
Old Yesterday, 08:43 PM
 
19,601 posts, read 17,640,688 times
Reputation: 10704
Our local newspaper editor just did a cable news commentary which he does daily. In it he detailed Congresswoman Talib's anti Israeli activism, Palestines terrorist ties to Iran and then ended it wondering where we find these people and under what rock? LOL, brilliant.
 
Old Yesterday, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Places you dream of
20,516 posts, read 12,286,123 times
Reputation: 8895
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenPineTree View Post
Omar is not White, she's a Somali. Rashida is a Palestinian, and while some Palestinians can look "White", Rashida does not, she looks part Black. I'm guessing part of her ancestry is from Gaza, hence she has Egyptian in her (some Black blood). Look at her nose and lips. No one thinks "White woman" with that mug.
Again I do not know their family bloodline - but dna is only thing I can go with.
 
Old Yesterday, 09:37 PM
 
12,863 posts, read 3,996,352 times
Reputation: 3879
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD View Post
Already represented not in the current time of 1924, but back in 1890, before the influx of Jews and Catholics.


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

That is what probably pissed off Senator Hart (a Catholic) and Emanuel Celler (a Jewish congressman) enough to write the 1965 act. So part of the blame goes to the 1924 congress. Celler was in office at the time, and he was one of the few “no” votes. I would bet if it had been done more fairly in 1924, there wouldn’t have been the urgency to change it in 1965.
True, the 1924 Act was to partly remediate the surge of poor immigrants and problems of mass immigration 1880-1920. The 1890 census still represented the people over 100 years after the revolution and in my view the people 250 years after the real start. Regardless, it was of questionable motivation to get rid of the quotas, leave alone globalize and increase immigration in 1965. The globalization of immigration seems especially spiteful.
 
Old Yesterday, 09:46 PM
 
Location: Northern NJ/Amagansett, NY
11,242 posts, read 10,310,602 times
Reputation: 7922
Quote:
Originally Posted by mtl1 View Post
True, the 1924 Act was to partly remediate the surge of poor immigrants and problems of mass immigration 1880-1920. The 1890 census still represented the people over 100 years after the revolution and in my view the people 250 years after the real start. Regardless, it was of questionable motivation to get rid of the quotas, leave alone globalize and increase immigration in 1965. The globalization of immigration seems especially spiteful.
Maybe, but as I said, there is a lot of blame to go around. It wasn’t just the work of the two guys who wrote the bill. Congress had enough votes in both houses. They had every opportunity to make changes before signing off on it. And Johnson signed off on it.
 
Old Yesterday, 10:12 PM
 
12,863 posts, read 3,996,352 times
Reputation: 3879
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnesthesiaMD View Post
Maybe, but as I said, there is a lot of blame to go around. It wasn’t just the work of the two guys who wrote the bill. Congress had enough votes in both houses. They had every opportunity to make changes before signing off on it. And Johnson signed off on it.
Of course but it was concocted with bad motivations, bad information and sold on lies at the time of its passage. And here it is over 50 years later and we're still saddle with it, and open borders, multiculturalism and minority majority is stronger than ever. And we're still being mislead, lied to, and cowed into not demanding it be changed.
 
Old Today, 03:49 AM
 
19,601 posts, read 17,640,688 times
Reputation: 10704
I could the progressives keeping her around as a useful idiot, but she's not being very useful. I mean she's whacky enough to completely dominate the 2020 dem primary if she was running.
 
Old Today, 06:59 AM
 
Location: Midwest
31,770 posts, read 19,828,281 times
Reputation: 8021
Would someone define "antisemitism" and give examples of exactly how those two congresswomen are antisemitic according to the definition?
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.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top