jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (78 posts)

You're only criticising the Obama administration now?

  1. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    When the liberal online rag, Politico, features a clip of Chris Matthews saying, “[Obama] obviously likes giving speeches more than he does running the executive branch,” we’re through the Looking Glass.

    But why are the Obama administration's failures, cover-ups and blatant abuses of power only seriously being looked at in the mainstream media now?

    Obama's failure on Gitmo got a pass, his illegal invasion of Libya was met with not a peep, NDAA, Monsanto-Protection-Act . . .

    No one at the moment is playing the race card for Obama, which has been an effective strategy. No one in the press is claiming that Obama’s Republican opponents are racists. Why not?

    Are the left finally done with Obama?

    If so, thank goodness. I shudder at the thought of who will replace him.

    1. profile image57
      Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'm sure the race card will be back soon.

      1. Zelkiiro profile image85
        Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The race card will be around so long as the Religious Right continues abusing the victim card.

        1. innersmiff profile image72
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And that excuses the broad brush any opponent of Obama is smeared with?

          1. Zelkiiro profile image85
            Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Considering much of the Religious Right comes from the South, and the South have a lovely history of slavery, segregation, lynchings, banning interracial marriage until just a few years ago, constantly flying the slavery-approving, racial-killing-approving Confederate flag, the always-lovely Jim Crow laws, and the fact that groups like the Ku Klux Klan are adamantly Christian...yes. I have no reason whatsoever to believe that anyone from the Religious Right ISN'T racist.

            1. innersmiff profile image72
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I'm not talking about the religious right - I'm talking about any opponent of Obama.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image85
                Zelkiiroposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                ...Which pretty much consists almost entirely of the Religious Right.

                And Libertarians, but I have no problems with Libertarians that aren't Ron/Rand Paul.

                1. innersmiff profile image72
                  innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Your prejudices towards religion cloud the issue.

                  Aside from the right, and libertarians (and I presume you only exclude the Pauls because of their religion, and arbitrarily so seeing as libertarians have no interest in enforcing their religion on anybody), there is a growing section of the left that is opposed to Obama's wars, corporate pandering and police-state-ism. Are these to be pre-emptively rejected based on a few religious racists?

            2. profile image82
              Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              How is stereotyping people from the religious right much different than stereotyping people based on the color of their skin?  It seems like a double standard to say that it's wrong to assume bad things of people for their skin color, but it's okay to do so because they are conservative and Christian.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Because those from the religious right share a group of ideas exclusively. You HAVE to have those opinions to be a member of the religious right...because that's what it is.

                So yes, it's safe to stereotype the religious right based on ideological grounds because it is a defined group that by definition shares those viewpoints.

                To say they are all stupid is unfair... and shows limited thinking.  To label them racist is a stretch, but has some basis on a group level if not a individual level.  To label the group as a whole generally bigoted, however, has validity.  Once again we're talking the group ideology, not individuals. However, it does stand to reason that if a group has bigoted ideologies, then a large percentage of that group has to be bigoted.

                1. Reality Bytes profile image91
                  Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, we know how their kind acts.  Do you realize the absurdity of judging individuals based upon a group that only exists in the mind? 

                  Each human being is unique and does not necessarily fit into an imaginary stereotype.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Really?

                    OK... so let's take the KKK for a minute.  Is it safe to assume that a majority of their members might lean towards racism?

                    Let's take the Westboro Baptists... Is it safe to assume that a majority of their members might be a touch anit-gay rights?

                    Let's look at the ASPCA... You think that most of their members are animal lovers?

                    The religious right isn't a race or a nationality.  It isn't made of people who just happen to be the same race or gender.

                    It is a political ideology.  It is DEFINED by they way it's members think.  The members weren't born into it, they chose to come together BECAUSE they share certain traits.  Telling me that assuming those traits exist is somehow absurd is a bit irrational.

                2. profile image82
                  Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Interesting, except that Christianity and conservatism have nothing to do with bigotry.  It's just a political move, from liberals, intended to get votes.  Liberals have played this move so often that some people begin to believe it's real.  It's repetition persuasion, a form of propaganda.

                  By your same thinking, the vast majority of liberals are all bleeding-hearted liberals who are politically correct and in debt to their eyes, because that thinking is based on ideological grounds.  After all, don't you HAVE to have those opinions/characteristics to be a member of the liberal left?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Party platform.  Conservative Christian Republicans. Yes, bigoted.  The conservative christian republican party platform IS bigoted.  You may not agree, but anti-gay, anti-immigrant, anti-woman laws are BIGOTED.  If that's what you are voting for, then that's what ya got.

                    And yes, the vast majority of liberals are bleeding-hearted, politically correct, and in debt to their eyes.

                    I'm glad we got that worked out. All that pussy-footing an posturing makes me crazy. Call a spade a spade already.

        2. profile image57
          Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          At least you admit that it isn't really an issue of truth just ginned up rhetoric coming from the left.

      2. profile image0
        Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hopefully not.
        Even Chris Matthews' leg has stopped tingling.   Apparently, anyway.

  2. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    IMO, American mainstream media is realizing that there are news agencies that will report, even if they do not.  They also realize that there is a growing segment of the American population turning to these news sources.  http://rt.com/   http://www.infowars.com/ for examples.   They can either pretend to be conducting true journalism or become irrelevant.

    1. profile image0
      Brenda Durhamposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's about time!

      Honestly, in my opinion it should be the mainstream media (traditional, established newspapers, tv stations, etc.) that should've always been reporting the News and still should.   Because the reported content and facts are more verifiable and official and are under an amount of accountability that the newer "news" outlets aren't under.    But since they seem to have dropped the ball, no wonder other news outlets have come to the forefront;  some of those are more just commentaries, and are often incredibly unprofessional and biased.   But at least they'll report on almost anything, so the public is aware of everything.   Sometimes even things we don't wanna be aware of.   Like.....I really really didn't wanna know that there are young girls stupid enough to be "fans" of the Boston bomber.   Kinda makes one wanna go hide under a rock or something.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The Russian news channel RT is actually very good.  I really do not see a bias myself.

    2. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      It's a bit late for that. Pretending doesn't turn back the clock and make them journalists.
      Mainstream media have become no better, honestly, than the tabloids.
      Don Henley called it years ago with Dirty Laundry
      So did Holly Hunte.r in Broadcast news.
      And that was even before we had a 24-hour news cycle beast to feed.

      DIRTY LAUNDRY

      I make my living off the Evening News
      Just give me something-something I can use
      People love it when you lose,
      They love dirty laundry

      Well, I coulda been an actor, but I wound up here
      I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
      Come and whisper in my ear
      Give us dirty laundry

      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em when they're down
      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em when they're down
      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em when they're down
      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em all around

      We got the bubble-headed-bleach-blonde who
      Comes on at five
      She can tell you 'bout the plane crash with a gleam
      In her eye
      It's interesting when people die-
      Give us dirty laundry

      Can we film the operation?
      Is the head dead yet?
      You know, the boys in the newsroom got a
      Running bet
      Get the widow on the set!
      We need dirty laundry

      You don't really need to find out what's going on
      You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
      Just leave well enough love
      Eat your dirty laundry

      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em when they're down
      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em when they're down

      Kick 'em when they're up
      Kick 'em when they're down
      Kick 'em when they're stiff
      Kick 'em all around

      Dirty little secrets
      Dirty little lies
      We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
      We love to cut you down to size
      We love dirty laundry

      We can do "The Innuendo"
      We can dance and sing
      When it's said and done we haven't told you a thing
      We all know that Crap is King
      Give us dirty laundry!

  3. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    I agree on the anti-gay.

    I don't agree on the anti-immigration. Having laws for immigration and enforcing them isn't anti-immigration. It's anti-illegal-immigration.

    I won't touch abortion

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If you are trying to limit immigration, then you are anti-immigrant.

      No moral judgement there at all. Just sayin'.

      I would say that limiting immigration would be intolerant of immigrants.

      Also no moral judgement there.  But it is bigoted.

      1. Mitch Alan profile image85
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        How is wanting to stop people from entering our country illegally anti-immigration? Don't confuse legal immigration, which most people support, with allowing people to come here illegally. It is a a straw-man argument to phrase it as "anti-immigration" when it is an issue of legal vs. illegal.
        Define, in your own words, how wanting to stop illegal border crossings into a sovereign nation is bigoted when those who want to stop illegals regardless of country of origin.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          But it's not just wanting to stop illegal immigration, it's wanting tougher laws.  It's wanting to put stipulations on entrance (needed skills), it's wanting to use biometric data to better track foreign travelers, it's wanting to allow visas to be revoked without court review, it's putting caps on visas altogether. None of these things are aimed at illegal immigration, they are aimed at reducing immigration all together. Hence, anti-immigrant.

          The group is immigrant.  The proposals are anti-immigrant. They show intolerance of immigrants, hence bigoted.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            There are, and have been, restrictions on LEGAL immigration. We have always had standards. We should track people who are here on any temporary basis so as to ensure that it is temporary. If we don't secure our borders then how do we maintain sovereignty? Should someone be able to illegally cross into a sovereign nation, take up residency and not be sent back to their own country, regardless of which country that is?
            Bigoted behavior is treating one specific group differently in a negative way versus how they treat other groups. With that in mind, how is wanting to limit immigration, as we always have, and securing our borders from any foreign country of origin in any way bigoted?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              No, we HAVEN'T always limited immigration.  That's a fairly recent thing in US history. (1920's for general immigration, laws before that were so obviously biased and discriminatory that I doubt you want to use them for your argument)

              I'm not talking about illegal immigration though, I'm talking about throwing up more and more limits to LEGAL immigration, which isn't a threat at all to sovereignty. I'm not sure illegal immigration is a threat to sovereignty either, but I digress.

              Conservatives are indeed treating a group (in fact all groups not of your culture) differently than you are treating members of your own culture and I'm sure they would agree it is in a negative way.

              Maybe you could explain, in detail, why you favor strict immigration laws.  Keep in mind that those who are legally in this country pose no threat to "sovereignty" as they ARE U.S. citizens, and as such pose no more threat to it than you do.

              If you use the words "our jobs" "our resources" or really "our" anything, you lose as you are then proving that you put "them" in a separate group and do not believe they are "our" equals.

              1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You did not answer most of my questions, but i will attempt to answer yours.
                If we do not limit legal immigration, we will undoubtedly have such an influx of people into our country as to overwhelm both our already strained employment issues and the entitlement and health resources of this nation. We are nation of immigrants and that has, in the past, made us the great nation we are. But, if there is not a controlled system for integrating those who wish to legally seek citizenship, then we would damage the country and not increase the value.
                Yes, it is OUR country...we are the United States of America, a sovereign nation. That "OUR" consists of every legal citizen of this great nation and does not include those that disobey our laws and sovereignty.  So, yes, we should protect our nation just as we would each individually protect our own homes. Would you prefer that we have open borders that allow anyone to cross our borders without any regulations? would you say the same for your own home?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Actually, I believe I answered most of your questions. 

                  We should track people who are here on any temporary basis so as to ensure that it is temporary?

                  No. We shouldn't.  At least not if you believe in innocent until proven guilty.

                  Should someone be able to illegally cross into a sovereign nation, take up residency and not be sent back to their own country, regardless of which country that is?

                  No, they should be LEGALLY able to cross into a sovereign nation, take up residency and not be sent back to their own country.  If they work and pay taxes, of course.  Why not?

                  Ok, those are the ones I missed.

                  Now, these points:

                  If we do not limit legal immigration, we will undoubtedly have such an influx of people into our country as to overwhelm both our already strained employment issues and the entitlement and health resources of this nation.

                  Nope.  No proof of that whatsoever.  As a matter of fact, new immigrants to a country tend to be ridiculously hard workers and often open their own businesses at higher than natural citizen rates.  They only "sponge off the system" when faced with barriers to employment.  Migrant workers, for example, do work that farmers have HISTORICALLY had difficulty filling by Americans. Italian and Irish immigrants pretty much built New York. German and Italian immigrants pretty much built the mining industry in the Appalachians. All these immigrants would have failed to pass the "education" and "skills" standards proposed by ConReps.

                  But, if there is not a controlled system for integrating those who wish to legally seek citizenship, then we would damage the country and not increase the value.

                  I agree with that.  We should definitely know them, give them citizen ID numbers and have them pay taxes.

                  Yes, it is OUR country...we are the United States of America, a sovereign nation.
                  You keep throwing that "sovereign" word around.  I don't think it means what you think it means. Immigration has nothing to do with sovereignty. It is in no way a threat.  However if you would explain to me how you think immigration would interfere with it, let me know. If it is OUR country, then the only thing that immigration would do it make it "OUR" country to the immigrants too.

                  That "OUR" consists of every legal citizen of this great nation and does not include those that disobey our laws and sovereignty.

                  There's that word again.  I still don't think it means what you think it means.  The obey our law thing is irrelevant... unless you can show that an immigrant-American breaks laws more than a natural born citizen does.

                  So, yes, we should protect our nation just as we would each individually protect our own homes.

                  I add new citizens to my home on a pretty regular basis.  I was unaware that people refused visitors, followed them around every where they went while they were there, and then kicked them out with no reason.  Is that how you run your home.  And your children, did you make sure they had "useful skills and education" before you let them move in?  If you thought they were taking too many of your resources, did you send them back where they came from... How angry was your wife?

                  Sarcasm, yes. But it was you that made the analogy... just showing how well it stands up.

                  Would you prefer that we have open borders that allow anyone to cross our borders without any regulations?

                  Nope, put 'em on the books and charge them taxes.

                  Would you say the same for your own home?

                  Once again, seriously flawed analogy.  Unless you are willing to put every new citizen you add to your home through the same thing that the ConReps want to put new immigrants through.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So, if we don't track people who are here on a limit, temporary basis, then how to we determine that they have over stayed their visa??
                    There is legal immigration and no one in the main is wanting to stop it, only regulate it to keep millions 9or even hundreds of thousands) of people flooding into this country without knowing who they are, what their intentions are and whether they are here temporarily or seeking citizenship.
                    No proof of an influx of illegal border crossers having a negative effect on the economy?? really? You don't understand economics, law or the weight brought upon the social, legal and economic infrastructure that is had by an influx of people to any society.
                    Yes, migrant farmers serve a purpose, but need to be regulated so as to not overburden the system. I already stated that LEGAL immigration is a good thing, but open borders without regulation have and will continue to cause problems.
                    My children and my house guest are there with my approval. If someone came into my house uninvited, even if they offered to do my cleaning, would be trespassers. If I came to your house, uninvited and demanded that you let me in and demanded whatever I wanted that you and your family enjoy as members of your household, you would have every right to tell me to leave.
                    We have laws in this country. We have immigration laws that set the standard for visiting our country, for working in our country and for taking up residency in our country. We have legal channels for obtaining citizenship. Could we streamline the immigration process? Absolutely. Should we do away with having national borders, sovereignty and laws? Absolutely not.

                  2. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    And, at just the possibility of this Administration and sadly both houses of Congress instituting a type of amnesty, we have seen an increase of people crossing the border. So, yes, it does affect us.

      2. Mitch Alan profile image85
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Melissa, you said, "If you are trying to limit immigration, then you are anti-immigrant." Would that mean you agree that limiting firearm ownership to law abiding citizens would constitute being anti-firearm and against the "shall not be infringed"? Would you agree that limiting the rights of business owners to hire who they want is anti-business?
        Or do you selectively chose when to apply "anti"...

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I agree.  I am indeed anti-firearm.  I will go so far as to say I'm anti-second amendment.

          I don't wish to limit who a company can hire, so I'm not anti-business in that case. 

          I'm not sure I get your point... or are you trying to change the subject?

          1. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            So, you believe that we should have a Constitutional Amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment (as that is the only legal way to change the Constitution)?
            You do however believe that you as a business owner can choose who to hire and who not to hire based on your own decisions without input from the federal government?

            1. Mitch Alan profile image85
              Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Also, to become a US citizen you must have had LEGAL residence in the US for 5 years or more (3 if married to a US citizen). By the very acknowledgement of the need for LEGAL residency it is by way of default understood that one can be here ILLEGALLY.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Once again.... So? I never said there was no such thing as an illegal immigrant.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I wouldn't oppose a constitutional amendment to repeal the 2nd amendment, no. I'm not exactly lobbying for it though. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything but OK. 

              Yes, I believe that a business owner can choose who to hire and not hire based on their own decisions without input from the federal government.... Once again... So?

          2. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            How would a ban on firearms for law abiding citizens, under your proposed repeal of the 2nd Amendment, be beneficial to the individual in relation to their personal liberty? How would it benefit society as a whole to remove the ability to defend one's own person and property, while leaving criminals with guns? Can you cite a time in the 20th and 21st century that a government has put a ban on firearms for law abiding citizens that has ended well for that country's people?

      3. profile image82
        Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        If you are trying to eliminate illegal immigration, you are not anti-immigration.  You can be for immigration and against illegal immigration.  The two do not have to go together. 

        It's not unreasonable to want to know who is in your country and for what purpose.  It is not bigoted to mandate immigrants to enter our home legally, follow our laws, undergo a background check, and learn basic citizenship requirements.  The American dream can still live for legal immigrants.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It's still bigoted.  Just because you have reasons for being bigoted doesn't make it not bigoted.

          "It is not bigoted to mandate immigrants to enter our home legally, follow our laws, undergo a background check, and learn basic citizenship requirements."

          You are not requiring all people entering the country to follow those requirements, just those entering from other nations.  If US citizens don't have to follow our laws, undergo a background check and learn basic citizenship requirements to live here, then forcing those of another culture to do it is by definition bigoted.

          Doesn't mean it's irrational (which some of it is, given that most Americans don't know crap about basic citizenship requirements and a large percent don't follow the laws-and indeed would fail the background check), but it still is bigoted.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Have you ever even read the Constitution and our immigration laws?

            1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
              MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Why don't you point out exactly what part of the constitution and immigration laws to which you are referring?

              1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Article I Section VIII of the United States Constitution states, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization..." We have specific laws that determine the proper and legal process for someone to obtain citizenship and it does not include crossing our borders illegally and then demanding the right to stay. Just as no one has the right to do that in your home. The Supreme Court of the United States has defined Naturalization as "the act of adopting a foreigner, and clothing him with the privileges of a native citizen".
                You mat argue that you would prefer us to have an open border and allow anyone to enter our country and stay as long as they want and demand the trappings of citizenship without going through the due process, but you wouldn't have a legal leg to stand on.

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
                  MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Never demanded any of that... but OK.

                  I think that if you come into the country, get put on the books, and are willing to earn the privileges of citizenship then why not?  You are doing better than quite a few "born" Americans. If Billy Ray Jim Bob can sit on the front porch of his trailer drinking beer and scratching his ass all day, then I see no reason that Diego can't come and work the job that Billy Bob is too damn lazy to do.

                  I never said a thing about due process.  I never said a thing about open borders.

                  1. Mitch Alan profile image85
                    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    What current legal limits on immigration do you feel are to Draconian? Name a specific federal immigration law that you would change and why? An actual law...cited as I did with a specific citation of the Constitution.

          2. profile image82
            Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Bigoted?  This is laughable.  You label people pretty readily, and that is bigoted.  Just because you try to justify it, that doesn't make it any less bigoted.

            To let anybody into our country without a screening process is naive at best.  It endangers people.  Drug dealers, gang members, and terrorists are among those entering our country; to say that all illegal immigrants deserve a chance without question is mindless, liberal jargon.  You want to leave the doors wide open and allow everybody in OUR country.  When somebody says we need to have a process to make sure immigrants are not criminals, you call them bigoted.  You're just flat out wrong here.  It's not bigoted to want to keep people safe.  Having an immigration policy in place is not bigoted.  Following that policy is not bigoted.

  4. Reality Bytes profile image91
    Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago

    Content: Defining Stereotypes
    A stereotype is an oversimplified, generalized concept or belief about a person, group, event, or issue, usually based on prejudice rather than on fact. People use stereotypes to analyze and categorize others by group rather than considering their individual differences. People come to see their own group as "we" and others as "they." Stereotyping can lead to ridicule and discriminatory behavior by one person or group toward another.

    A brief description of stereotyping includes:

    grouping people together based on their race, ethnicity, religion, language, customs, appearance, gender, or culture;
    denying people rights because of the group they belong to; and
    believing that one's own group is superior; other groups are inferior.
    Ways to reduce stereotyping include:

    promoting firsthand knowledge through personal experiences,
    putting oneself in another's shoes and considering multiple perspectives, and
    working toward a meaningful goal with others when all share equal status.

    http://www.learner.org/libraries/social … round.html

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Thank you for the vocabulary lesson...

      You seem to be missing the point.

      If you join a motorcycle club, is it stereotyping to say you like motorcycles?

      If I said that all motorcyclists were stupid, that would be stereotyping.

      There's a distinction... I'm sure you are going to keep ignoring that because of self-defensiveness however.

      1. Reality Bytes profile image91
        Reality Bytesposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        But, the motorcycle club would actually exist.  It is not an imaginary group used to place those that disagree with someone for the purpose of ridicule.

        Why not just respect the individual?

        I think the main problem with society is creating the us vs them paradigm.

        1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
          MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Because if the ideologies exist, then those individuals with that ideology form a group whether they want to or not.  In addition, that group has defining characteristics that members of that group share. (I.E. all blonds are blond and they form a demographic group, whether or not they organize or not)

          I'm not ridiculing. 

          I do respect the individual.  I'm not saying that anyone in the "group" has any inferior qualities.  I'm just saying that the one of the defining characteristics of that "group" are beliefs in bigoted ideas.

  5. MelissaBarrett profile image61
    MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago

    1.  I call 'em how I see them.  If you are treating people of another culture unequally, that is the definition of bigoted.  Look it up.  Didn't say it was unreasonable.  No moral judgement.  But it is bigoted.
    2.  What group did I label?  If you're saying I labeled bigots as bigoted... then I confess.  Water is wet too.
    3. Didn't say not to screen.  I will say it is largely statistically pointless.  There is not one study in the world that links legal American immigrants to any higher crime rate than natural born citizens. Those who have gone through the process are -on average- just as upright citizens as those born here. You seem to believe that legal immigrants raise crime rates... there's a word for believing negative things about a group of people with no evidence.
    4. I'm not a liberal.
    5. Wanting to keep people safe has been the cause countless examples of bigoted behaviors, ideas and laws, MOST of them to be honest.

    1. profile image82
      Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You may not claim to be a liberal, but you are espousing a liberal belief, the justification of illegal immigration.  You also talk about eradicating the second amendment, another belief that is more liberal than conservative.  I'm just calling it as I see it.  If a person believes in liberal policy, they are a liberal.  You are a liberal.

      If a person is opposed to late-stage abortion, that doesn't mean they are sexist or even opposed to abortion.  If a person is opposed to illegal immigration, that doesn't mean they are bigoted or even opposed to immigration.  You’re looking for extremist labels, and it just doesn't work that way.

      You see, I am opposed to the illegal immigration, not just limited to Mexico.  I am opposed to all illegal immigration, regardless of nationality or race.  What does that mean?  According to you I am bigoted towards any person who is not American?  Your general definitions are ridiculous.  I'm just calling it as I see it.  By the way, if you want to really say it like it is, stop using euphemisms and political correctness.  Bigoted really means racist.

  6. Mitch Alan profile image85
    Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago

    If you or I are stopped for speeding we need to provide legal ID. Why should it be any different for anyone else. If you can't show legal ID and are here illegally, then why shouldn't you be deported? Why would you have a problem enforcing State and federal immigration laws, as that is exactly what the Arizona law does?
    Furthermore, there has been an increase in illegal border crossing since the current amnesty talks have been moving in that direction.

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image61
      MelissaBarrettposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, however I am never stopped because of the color of my skin on a trumped up "you were going 36 in a 35, prove you're American"

      If you can tell me that's never happened, then go for it.

      Nor have I ever been required to show ID when I was a passenger in a car that got pulled over.  Under this law, that is permissible and encouraged.

      1. Mitch Alan profile image85
        Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        an you cite the part of Arizona SB 1070, in it's current form,  that either mandates or even encourages police officers to pull people over based on skin color. What part of the legislation does that?

        1. profile image82
          Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No part of the legislation does that.

          1. Mitch Alan profile image85
            Mitch Alanposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I knew that...but, assumed that Melissa was making "talking points" rather than citing actual facts about the law.

    2. profile image82
      Education Answerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      +1

 
working