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.
Diversity itself isn't a positive. It's neutral at best and negative at worst. I don't know why this politically motivated talking point became gospel to so many who don't even understand the idea behind it all. There is not strength in it, that's a bumper sticker slogan with zero meaning.
ANYWAY, yes it can and does lead to division but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be worked through. It's always been that way and always will be. There are just limits on everything and per usually we don't know when to stop.
Most rural America areas have no minorities, no diversity. Those places always exist. Obviously, the goal of “freedom of association” is not creating those places.
So what you’re saying is this: only white, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant people have the right to live and vote in the USA. Right?
Therefore, all Roman Catholic, Jews, Muslims, atheists, agnostics, black people, brown people, Asians, Hindus, etc can just “go back to where they came from”.
What are you going to do with your white LGBT folks? Kill them?
Then you can have ONE leader, one thought, one opinion, and one party. You can only have applause for your one leader or you can have silence.
That is what you’re saying. Go ahead and please tell us that you don’t have a single racist, bigoted bone in your body.
Gosh, Lenin would be so proud of you.
No need to...they don't reproduce so they will die out on their own...that's called natural selection. Let it do its thing and the problem goes away by itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NigerianNightmare
If your elected reprsentatives across the board vote for something, and that representative is who you voted for. You are saying yes to that issue, especially if you elect that representative again next election cycle. How come the immigration act didn't come with a wave of backlash against members of congress?
Well that's the entire problem. The people never voted on it, and wouldn't have done so if they had been asked, but they weren't. Moreover their "representatives" LIED to them. Bald faced outright lied.
And you know what, it SHOULD have resulted in backlash. Major backlash. I think anyone elected to public office should be forced to act only in the spirit of their pledges and if they violate one - they get executed. How about that for accountability? Don't take the job unless you can handle it. Oh, and lying to the public about legislation? Another capital offense. Even proposing any legislation that conflicts with the plain language of the Constitution ? No trial , go right to the chair or firing squad.
You don't HAVE to be a representative. Its a privilege and a somber and sacred duty. We need some strong deterrents against abuse of this role. Meaning, if you screw up, you're DEAD.
No need to...they don't reproduce so they will die out on their own...that's called natural selection. Let it do its thing and the problem goes away by itself.
That’s not how it works, that’s not how any of this works......
If your elected reprsentatives across the board vote for something, and that representative is who you voted for. You are saying yes to that issue, especially if you elect that representative again next election cycle. How come the immigration act didn't come with a wave of backlash against members of congress?
LBJ said the 1965 Immigration Act “is not a revolutionary act. It will not affect the lives of millions”. Ted Kennedy said it would not change the demographics of our country.
Interesting that you don’t know this. Interesting that this information is not shared in the classrooms. The Act, Hart-Cellar, was drafted by two Jews with input from Israel.
Before you respond please look this all up and verify for yourself. This board needs to educate itself on the truth instead of just liberal talking points.
Explain libs. Diversity weakens a country's unity in all ways.
All true, but this is what the current Democratic Party has devolved into.
It's all about instilling fear, and dread into people's hearts on important issues that matter to them. The dems slice and dice the people up, and single out groups of people who are then made into oppressed victims. The Democrats set themselves up as they only people willing to protect them, the only ones holding the barbarians at the gate.
For example, if you are a senior citizen, the dems try to set you up as a victim. the dems try and scare the hell out of you that everyone else is trying to take away your Social Security and Medicare, and only they will protect you.
Nobody is saying that allowing diversity is a bad thing.
Like most aspects of big government......It's only bad when it's manipulated and mandatory.
Except there are posters in this thread that are arguing that allowing diversity is a bad thing. Granted, they are obviously white nationalists, and their views aren't mainstream, but there are definitely people who think that way.
In terms of manipulated and mandated diversity - I don't know. It can be really beneficial to get people out of their comfort zone. But I know doing so can also produce unhealthy levels of anxiety, and I'm all for people being able to make their own decisions instead of the government telling them what to do. I guess it has be done carefully?
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.
