Immigration is Destroying America.

[kaz]

1. America is not an entirely free market. It is a combination of free market principle and Marxist principle (ex. minimum wage laws, worker safety laws, environmental regulations, etc) It also is quite Marxist in its overwhelming support for higher taxes on the rich (a concept right out of the Communist Manifesto).

2. Your a name caller (since you have no substance to post)

3. Yes, America is the land of the brave as evidenced by all of us (me included) who served in the US Armed Forces, which you cowardly ducked, while making up lamebrain excuses for it.

4. Of course I want to shut our borders. They should have been shut (generally) ever since 1860, when we passed our optimum population (relative to resource base). I want to protect America from all the many harms of immigration and overpopulation, one of which is remittances$$, which hurts your businesses, except your to naive to recognize it.

5. I love America, which is why I am a protectionist of it, against creeps like you who bring harm to it by your advocacy of immigration, for no reason other than to feed your GREED, at the expense of the American people.

1. Which has nothing to do with what I said, I was referring to your Marxist rhetoric demagogging capitalism.

2. I called you a Marxist specifically for your Marxist rhetoric, a xenophobe due to your wanting to close the borders even to legal immigrants who can support themselves and add to the economy and a coward because you think we can't compete in a free world. You can deflect all you want, but I was pretty specific.

3. Everyone who doesn't join the military is a coward and we must join unless we can identify a compelling reason not to. Got it. LOL.

4. Which we agree on with illegal immigration, it's your wanting to shut them to legal immigrants that makes you unamerican in the country built on immigration.

5. Yes, Lenin, I'm a capitalist which makes me "greedy." LOL. Russia is your speed, Comrade Coward.

 

[RKMBrown]

Verification is easy. Just contact the Tampa Tribune and the Tampa Bay Times. They post notices routinely. Most common is Dog Beach on Gandy Blvd.

Tampa doesn't count it's been filthy there for 40years.

My arguing is over for this week. This is Memorial Day week (leading up to Memorial Day). I will only post this week in my new thread >> "Nothing Is More Important Than Memorial Day." I hope that all who post in that thread will respect the meaning and significance of this hugely important day/weekend/week. We can bitch and claw at each other left & right over here but in the Memorial Day thread, we need to show respect for those who gave it all to PROTECT us and our nation, regardless of any politics around it.
I'm fairly confident that it will be a peaceful, solemn, respectful thread, to honor those whom we owe really everything we have. If anybody were to go in there and start troll talking, they'd have to be the biggest idiot on earth. I think we're all above that.

I'm trying to be nice to ya in this thread you invited us to, but your idea of "respectful" and mine appear to be on different planets.

 

[protectionist]

Tampa doesn't count it's been filthy there for 40years.

My arguing is over for this week. This is Memorial Day week (leading up to Memorial Day). I will only post this week in my new thread >> "Nothing Is More Important Than Memorial Day." I hope that all who post in that thread will respect the meaning and significance of this hugely important day/weekend/week. We can bitch and claw at each other left & right over here but in the Memorial Day thread, we need to show respect for those who gave it all to PROTECT us and our nation, regardless of any politics around it.
I'm fairly confident that it will be a peaceful, solemn, respectful thread, to honor those whom we owe really everything we have. If anybody were to go in there and start troll talking, they'd have to be the biggest idiot on earth. I think we're all above that.

I'm trying to be nice to ya in this thread you invited us to, but your idea of "respectful" and mine appear to be on different planets.

Looking at the quote, there does NOT appear to be any invitation to you to anything. So you're one of those guys who goes around inviting himself to a party, pretends to have been invited, and then promptly fucks it up with your totally out of place persona, nasty remarks based on fake umbrage.

Kids: be careful. If you act like this, then like RKMB (Retarded Kindergarten Mentality Buffoon), then you too will get threads written about you, complete with a poll that (88%) says you're both stupid and a liar. I don't even want to say the other word they used to describe him. You can go to that thread and see for yourselves >> http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-flame-zone/351677-what-kind-of-****-is-rkmbrown.html

 

[protectionist]

Tampa doesn't count it's been filthy there for 40years.

My arguing is over for this week. This is Memorial Day week (leading up to Memorial Day). I will only post this week in my new thread >> "Nothing Is More Important Than Memorial Day." I hope that all who post in that thread will respect the meaning and significance of this hugely important day/weekend/week. We can bitch and claw at each other left & right over here but in the Memorial Day thread, we need to show respect for those who gave it all to PROTECT us and our nation, regardless of any politics around it.
I'm fairly confident that it will be a peaceful, solemn, respectful thread, to honor those whom we owe really everything we have. If anybody were to go in there and start troll talking, they'd have to be the biggest idiot on earth. I think we're all above that.

Just keep the homophobic, xenophobic, etc. stuff out of it and you won't get an argument from me.

That was the FALSE statement of the month. Not only did I get an argument, but every poster in the forum got a thread derailed (and one of great significance) "Biggest idiot on earth" showed up.

 

[Unkotare]

Looks like they let the loon out of the isolation ward...

 

[protectionist]

Here are what I see as the HARMS of Immigration (in America). Feel free to dispute, debate, confirm, or whatever on any one or combination of these. This should be a good, rousing debate (but please try to stay on topic)

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

Can you substantiate this assertion with any facts?

I ask because suggesting that "Americans (especially whites) lose jobs due to affirmative action" flies in the face of
Ricci v. DeStefano
Washington v. Davis
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co
Gratz v. Bollinger
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
...and many other cases.

Do you know what affirmative action is?
"In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of 'color, religion, sex, or national origin'."
Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. You think that this statement of fact (which you laughably call an "assertion") could somehow need to be substantiated ? Are you trying to claim that Americans do NOT lose jobs ? (especially Whites due to affirmative action) If so, let's hear YOUR substantiation, if you think you have that. In the meantime one doesn't need substantiation for what is commonly known. You want to give us substantiation that rivers flow from higher elevations to lower ones ? Not needed. Get it ?

2. Affirmative action cannot be said to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of 'color, religion, sex, or national origin, when it does exactly that. The only thing AA does is change the identities of the victims and beneficiaries of the discrimination. Minorities, and women become the beneficiaries, and white males become the victims. Discrimination per se, hasn't been removed or prevented.

3. Saying that "Americans (especially whites) lose jobs due to affirmative action" most certainly DOES NOT fly in the face of Ricci v. DeStefano. To the contrary, in that case the SCOTUS ruled that the white (and 1 Hispanic) New Haven, CT firefighter were indeed being discriminated against. Ricci was the winner in that case. Not DeStefano (who represented the city and its affirmative action program)
Likewise, in the recent University of Michigan case (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action) the SCOTUS again ruled against affirmative action, because of its discriminatory character. It is pure racial discrimination, and anyone defending it ought to be ashamed of themselves. People's whole lives have been changed and ruined by affirmative action.

4. Despite SCOTUS rulings against AA, it still persists all over the country. Just apply for any govt job anywhere, and see if you don't get an AA questionairre. The discriminators continue to discriminate, and do so until they are challenged by court action, which isn't common. This might be because the potential challengers (job seekers and kids entering college) can't afford the legal expense.

 

[protectionist]

Looks like they let the loon out of the isolation ward...

And how many threads have been devoted to YOUR lying loonieness ? Or is it just posts calling you such things as Unaware and Punkotard ?

 

[Unkotare]

Let's have another 100 pages of some cowardly idiot who can't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Who knows what wonders some senile imagination will cook up out of dotage and delirium this time?

 

[protectionist]

Let's have another 100 pages of some cowardly idiot who can't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Who knows what wonders some senile imagination will cook up out of dotage and delirium this time?

My only delerium might be in why do I even respond to stuff like this ?

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

Here are what I see as the HARMS of Immigration (in America). Feel free to dispute, debate, confirm, or whatever on any one or combination of these. This should be a good, rousing debate (but please try to stay on topic)

Harms of Immigration

1. Americans lose jobs. (especially Whites due to affirmative action).

Can you substantiate this assertion with any facts?

I ask because suggesting that "Americans (especially whites) lose jobs due to affirmative action" flies in the face of
Ricci v. DeStefano
Washington v. Davis
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co
Gratz v. Bollinger
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
...and many other cases.

Do you know what affirmative action is?
"In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of 'color, religion, sex, or national origin'."
Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. You think that this statement of fact (which you laughably call an "assertion") could somehow need to be substantiated ? Are you trying to claim that Americans do NOT lose jobs ? (especially Whites due to affirmative action) If so, let's hear YOUR substantiation, if you think you have that.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.​

You made an assertion. You are responsible for proving your own assertions.

What's more, it's a fallacy to ask me to prove the negative.
If one person says: "New York City was founded by Martians!"
and another person says in response: "I'll need you to prove that assertion"
If the first person turns to the second and says "That Martians founded New York City is a statement of fact and you must disprove it!"
Well, then that first person may have started out crazy but they ended up very illogical.

In the meantime one doesn't need substantiation for what is commonly known.

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so​

You want to give us substantiation that rivers flow from higher elevations to lower ones ? Not needed. Get it ?

Uhm, geology and physics are in fact needed and explain that phenomenon quite aptly.
No, I cannot agree with you that we no longer need geology...and physics.

2. Affirmative action cannot be said to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of 'color, religion, sex, or national origin, when it does exactly that. The only thing AA does is change the identities of the victims and beneficiaries of the discrimination. Minorities, and women become the beneficiaries, and white males become the victims. Discrimination per se, hasn't been removed or prevented.

Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side​

Again, can you substantiate this with anything? Is this just what you have been told by some angry guy you met one time?
Look, if you have any evidence of racial discrimination of any sort in the hiring process of any employer, then you have an obligation as a decent human being to contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

3. Saying that "Americans (especially whites) lose jobs due to affirmative action" most certainly DOES NOT fly in the face of Ricci v. DeStefano. To the contrary, in that case the SCOTUS ruled that the white (and 1 Hispanic) New Haven, CT firefighter were indeed being discriminated against. Ricci was the winner in that case. Not DeStefano (who represented the city and its affirmative action program)

You missed the point of that case. New Haven was unlawful in its racial discrimination against white people in the workplace. Do you understand that? It is unlawful to discriminate against anyone including white people on the basis of race in the workplace.
That case demonstrates that white people are protected from racism too.

Likewise, in the recent University of Michigan case (Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action) the SCOTUS again ruled against affirmative action, because of its discriminatory character.

SCOTUS did not rule against affirmative action, or affirmative action wouldn't exist anywhere in the country. You do understand that, don't you?
SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of a ban on any racial discrimination.

It [ AA ] is pure racial discrimination, and anyone defending it ought to be ashamed of themselves. People's whole lives have been changed and ruined by affirmative action.

Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.​

SCOTUS has struck down racial quotas. SCOTUS has struck down invidious racial discrimination in the workplace and in schools and in housing and in public accommodation.
If affirmative action were "pure racial discrimination" then why does SCOTUS not strike down affirmative action? How can AA persist if it is what you say it is?

4. Despite SCOTUS rulings against AA, it still persists all over the country.

That claim makes no sense. That's like arguing that de jure racial segregation still exists in public schools even though SCOTUS struck down de jure racial segregation. Are you suggesting that SCOTUS has no authority over the laws in this country?

Just apply for any govt job anywhere, and see if you don't get an AA questionairre.

You mean like this?

The federal government under Executive Order 11246 requires the company to report sex and race/ethnic origin of applicants for employment. Applicants are considered for all positions without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, marital or veteran status, or the presence of a non-job related medical condition or disability. The information requested below is voluntary; failure to provide it will not jeopardize or adversely affect consideration of your employment. Your cooperation is appreciated. The information obtained will be kept confidential and may only be used in accordance with applicable laws. When data is reported, it will not identify any specific individual.​

The discriminators continue to discriminate, and do so until they are challenged by court action, which isn't common. This might be because the potential challengers (job seekers and kids entering college) can't afford the legal expense.

That's called racism, and yes, racism happens all the time and we should not tolerate racism. What you just described happens all the time. When a black person gets denied a job because the hiring manager doesn't like black people is racism. When a white person is denied a job because the hiring manager doesn't like white people is called racism. When one suffers disparate treatment in the workplace due to ones race that is racism. Many cases of racism do go unreported.

There's plenty of racism still out there. It is unlawful to deny you a job on the basis of your race, but don't think that there isn't some racist out there who might want to try it. That's racism.

 

[TemplarKormac]

^That's a wrap folks.

 

[RKMBrown]

^That's a wrap folks.

Wanna bet?

 

[TemplarKormac]

^That's a wrap folks.

Wanna bet?

I'm broke man. I'd bet rep, but it's non transferable.

No, protectionist will summon up the trollish energies of Stormfront, and go on another 100 pages of nonsense.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Let's have another 100 pages of some cowardly idiot who can't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Who knows what wonders some senile imagination will cook up out of dotage and delirium this time?

My only delerium might be in why do I even respond to stuff like this ?

"delirium"

Try using words you actually know the meaning of.

 

[protectionist]

Can you substantiate this assertion with any facts?

I ask because suggesting that "Americans (especially whites) lose jobs due to affirmative action" flies in the face of
Ricci v. DeStefano
Washington v. Davis
City of Richmond v. J.A. Croson Co
Gratz v. Bollinger
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
...and many other cases.

Do you know what affirmative action is?
"In the United States, affirmative action refers to equal opportunity employment measures that Federal contractors and subcontractors are legally required to adopt. These measures are intended to prevent discrimination against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of 'color, religion, sex, or national origin'."
Affirmative action in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. You think that this statement of fact (which you laughably call an "assertion") could somehow need to be substantiated ? Are you trying to claim that Americans do NOT lose jobs ? (especially Whites due to affirmative action) If so, let's hear YOUR substantiation, if you think you have that.

Argument from ignorance (appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ignorantiam) – assuming that a claim is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or vice versa.​

You made an assertion. You are responsible for proving your own assertions.

What's more, it's a fallacy to ask me to prove the negative.
If one person says: "New York City was founded by Martians!"
and another person says in response: "I'll need you to prove that assertion"
If the first person turns to the second and says "That Martians founded New York City is a statement of fact and you must disprove it!"
Well, then that first person may have started out crazy but they ended up very illogical.

Argumentum ad populum (appeal to widespread belief, bandwagon argument, appeal to the majority, appeal to the people) – where a proposition is claimed to be true or good solely because many people believe it to be so​

Uhm, geology and physics are in fact needed and explain that phenomenon quite aptly.
No, I cannot agree with you that we no longer need geology...and physics.

Appeal to fear – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made by increasing fear and prejudice towards the opposing side​

Again, can you substantiate this with anything? Is this just what you have been told by some angry guy you met one time?
Look, if you have any evidence of racial discrimination of any sort in the hiring process of any employer, then you have an obligation as a decent human being to contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.


You missed the point of that case. New Haven was unlawful in its racial discrimination against white people in the workplace. Do you understand that? It is unlawful to discriminate against anyone including white people on the basis of race in the workplace.
That case demonstrates that white people are protected from racism too.


SCOTUS did not rule against affirmative action, or affirmative action wouldn't exist anywhere in the country. You do understand that, don't you?
SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of a ban on any racial discrimination.

Appeal to spite – a specific type of appeal to emotion where an argument is made through exploiting people's bitterness or spite towards an opposing party.​

SCOTUS has struck down racial quotas. SCOTUS has struck down invidious racial discrimination in the workplace and in schools and in housing and in public accommodation.
If affirmative action were "pure racial discrimination" then why does SCOTUS not strike down affirmative action? How can AA persist if it is what you say it is?



That claim makes no sense. That's like arguing that de jure racial segregation still exists in public schools even though SCOTUS struck down de jure racial segregation. Are you suggesting that SCOTUS has no authority over the laws in this country?

Just apply for any govt job anywhere, and see if you don't get an AA questionairre.

You mean like this?

The federal government under Executive Order 11246 requires the company to report sex and race/ethnic origin of applicants for employment. Applicants are considered for all positions without regard to race, color, religion, gender, national origin, age, marital or veteran status, or the presence of a non-job related medical condition or disability. The information requested below is voluntary; failure to provide it will not jeopardize or adversely affect consideration of your employment. Your cooperation is appreciated. The information obtained will be kept confidential and may only be used in accordance with applicable laws. When data is reported, it will not identify any specific individual.​

The discriminators continue to discriminate, and do so until they are challenged by court action, which isn't common. This might be because the potential challengers (job seekers and kids entering college) can't afford the legal expense.

That's called racism, and yes, racism happens all the time and we should not tolerate racism. What you just described happens all the time. When a black person gets denied a job because the hiring manager doesn't like black people is racism. When a white person is denied a job because the hiring manager doesn't like white people is called racism. When one suffers disparate treatment in the workplace due to ones race that is racism. Many cases of racism do go unreported.

There's plenty of racism still out there. It is unlawful to deny you a job on the basis of your race, but don't think that there isn't some racist out there who might want to try it. That's racism.

1. Some people have be told twice. NO, I did NOT make an "assertion". You are belittling it to that, to fit your own biased agenda. I stated a well-known and totally OBVIOUS FACT, and what also is a totally obvious fact, is your disingenuousness. How could Americans NOT be losing jobs, when millions of immigrants (legal & illegal) are pouring into the country, simultaneously to milllions of Americans being unemployed ? That is impossible.

2. As for AA, when millions of immigrants are in the status being given preference over American white males, with AA rampant all over the country, how could millions of white males not be losing jobs as a result of that AA also ? You know damn well they are, and you're playing some kind of silly little word game, which goes nowhere.

3. As for the EEOC, I've made claims with them. They're a joke. They protect Muslim terrorists, but won't protect an American white person discriminated against by AA.

4. As for the Ricci case, good grief, I don't who's been feeding you what, but of course Ricci was an affirimative action case. And the SCOTUS (as I told you) HAS struck down affirmative action. And I've also already explained to you why AA still goes on, so don't pretend that you don't know that, either.

5. NO, it is NOT like arguing that de jure racial segregation still exists in public schools even though SCOTUS struck down de jure racial segregation. Because de jure RS is one thing and AA is another. What happens with one is not necessarily the same as another.

6. The SCOTUS has authority to make the laws be what they are. But that doesn't mean they are going to obeyed or enforced, or paid any attention to. Lots of laws are on the books and are generally ignored. Some immigration laws fall into that category. Some of the sedition and treason and unconstitutionality laws, as well (ex, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2) It's there plain as day. And it's ignored every day too. As if AA all over American. You heard the explanation already. I'm going to pander to you by explaining thing twice. You've already been refuted on this.

7. YEAH! I most certainly DO mean like that. And the biggest LIE ever been told in America. Only a complete fool would fall for it >>"failure to provide it will not jeopardize or adversely affect consideration of your employment."

8. What's the point of yammering to me about all these various types of racism, while leaving the one type that we're talking about ? > Affirmative Action And everything you just stated fits AA like a glove.

a. YEAH, "it is unlawful to deny you a job on the basis of your race" But employers do it every day with AA.

b. What I "just described" is AA.

c. And as I said before (which you seem to have to be told twice) is that AA goes on unreported when the white male victims can't afford litigation to challenge it. The AA racists are like schoolyard bullies. They do whatever they wish, regardless of the moral aspect, and only stop when they are forced to (which with AA is rare). The SCOTUS can make all the decisions they like. If you as a white male, apply for a job, and get handed an AA questionnaire (and you know you won't get the job if you don't fill it out), the SCOTUS isn't going to be standing there, to see to it that the racist AA employer is following the law. The SCOTUS decision is merely procedure de jure. What the company (or govt agencies) can get away with, like the schoolyard bully, is procedure de facto (what actually takes place). And when millions of foreigner pour into the country, hungry for jobs, and they are in the AA preference groups (ex. Hispanic), those racist AA employers will hire THEM, rather than white Americans (but they'll probably hire the immigrant anyway, for the low wages and working conditions he'll accept).

 

[protectionist]

^That's a wrap folks.

Wanna bet?

I'm broke man. I'd bet rep, but it's non transferable.

No, protectionist will summon up the trollish energies of Stormfront, and go on another 100 pages of nonsense.

If you're referring to that pitiful post of Zombie Pundit, no Stormfront or any web site is needed to refute stuff that refutes itself.

 

[protectionist]

Let's have another 100 pages of some cowardly idiot who can't distinguish between legal and illegal immigration. Who knows what wonders some senile imagination will cook up out of dotage and delirium this time?

My only delerium might be in why do I even respond to stuff like this ?

"delirium"

Try using words you actually know the meaning of.

I'm the POET in this thread. I use words as I see fit.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/writing/64331-poet-s-corner-78.html

 

[Zombie_Pundit]

1. Some people have be told twice.

Indeed they do.

NO, I did NOT make an "assertion". You are belittling it [what protectionist claimed] to that [an assertion], to fit your own biased agenda.

Belittle? You find logic belittling?

How about vocabulary? Do you find English Vocabulary belittling?

as·ser·tion (ə-sûr′shən)
n.
1. The act of asserting.
2. Something declared or stated positively, often with no support or attempt at proof.

I stated a well-known and totally OBVIOUS FACT,

Then you should have no probably finding one shred of evidence that corroborates your claim, if it is so obvious and well known.

Here is a link that can help:
Google

and what also is a totally obvious fact, is your disingenuousness.

Disingenuousness? I think there is some disingenuousness in this thread, but it is coming from you. You spend a lot of time on these posts, so I am inclined to think you are not just trolling for lulz, but other than the amount of time that is required to type out your long numbered lists you do follow that old billygoat-eating pattern.

How could Americans NOT be losing jobs, when millions of immigrants (legal & illegal) are pouring into the country, simultaneously to milllions of Americans being unemployed ? That is impossible.

Legal immigrants are Americans. Immigration is how we all got here. How do you differentiate between "Americans" and "Legal Immigrants to America"? Is there some criteria you are not specifying? Are you including foreign workers on visas or are you just angry at brown people?

But that was not your original contention.

Are you trying to claim that Americans do NOT lose jobs [to immigrants] ? (especially Whites due to affirmative action)

Let's not lose sight of the edge of the rabbit hole.

2. As for AA, when millions of immigrants are in the status being given preference over American white males,

Oh my, so you really think Americans are all white. What does that make darker skinned people living here... Canadians?

with AA rampant all over the country, how could millions of white males not be losing jobs as a result of that AA also ?

Wow. How could they? I mean, how could they? I'm asking you, how could millions of white males not be losing jobs as a result of that AA given that they are not?

You know damn well they are, and you're playing some kind of silly little word game, which goes nowhere.

I want to quote South Park now
"They took our jobs!"

3. As for the EEOC, I've made claims with them.

I'm sure they look forward to your calls.... your many many many many many calls.

They're [the EEOC] a joke. They protect Muslim terrorists, but won't protect an American white person discriminated against by AA.

Did you just accuse the EEOC of protecting "muslim terrorists"? I'm not outraged... I mean... really?
Do you live under a bridge? Do you enjoy fresh goat? Perhaps a little one, then a medium sized one, then a larger one, that sort of thing?

4. As for the Ricci case, good grief, I don't who's been feeding you what, but of course Ricci was an affirimative action case. And the SCOTUS (as I told you) HAS struck down affirmative action. And I've also already explained to you why AA still goes on, so don't pretend that you don't know that, either.

I don't like picking on someone's spelling but "affirimative action" is kind of funny. You said AA is "pure racism" but you have not reconciled that with the existence of the authority of the Supreme Court.

5. NO, it is NOT like arguing that de jure racial segregation still exists in public schools even though SCOTUS struck down de jure racial segregation. Because de jure RS is one thing and AA is another. What happens with one is not necessarily the same as another.

Was that last statement a question?
You specifically said that AA was "pure racism", and made quite a fuss about AA being "pure racism" but then you say de jure racial segregation is not like AA, which means you don't think de jure racial segregation is "pure racism".
I'm afraid to ask what you think de jure racial segregation is.

6. The SCOTUS has authority to make the laws be what they are.

No, that's the legislature that makes laws, not the judiciary.

But that doesn't mean they [ SCOTUS or laws? ] are going to obeyed or enforced, or paid any attention to.

The antecedent is ambiguous. But it is evident that you think laws and courts are "optional".

Lots of laws are on the books and are generally ignored. Some immigration laws fall into that category. Some of the sedition and treason and unconstitutionality laws, as well (ex, the Supremacy Clause (Article 6, Section 2) It's there plain as day. And it's ignored every day too. As if AA all over American. You heard the explanation already. I'm going to pander to you by explaining thing twice. You've already been refuted on this.

There's no such thing as "unconstitutionality laws".

Oh, I get it now! You have confused this section of the forum for the FICTION section!
Oh, wow, this all makes sense now. Okay... Let's do that!

7. YEAH! I most certainly DO mean like that. And the biggest LIE ever been told in America. Only a complete fool would fall for it >>"failure to provide it will not jeopardize or adversely affect consideration of your employment."

I happen to know someone who never filled that crap out, but then they turned into a zombie...
Oh wait, that person was me!
Or did I get bit? I don't know, fail to fill out an optional AA questionnaire or get bit, either way one turns into a zombie.

8. What's the point of yammering to me about all these various types of racism,

Such that I might fill out a menu complete with different flavors of human flesh... I mean so you can fight for liberty, of course!
yeah, that's the ticket!

while leaving the one type that we're talking about ? > Affirmative Action And everything you just stated fits AA like a glove.

Does Affirmative Action, in any way, help societal cohesion and integration? Because if so, as a member of the vanguard of a horde of the undead, I would be against anything that would help organize resistance against our slow moving horde.

a. YEAH, "it is unlawful to deny you a job on the basis of your race" But employers do it every day with AA.

Evidence please.

b. What I "just described" is AA.

Just because you decide to start calling racism AA does not mean the rest of us have to follow suit. You can start calling apples oranges and bananas pears (and I'm certain you'll try it and frustrate the heck out of the checkout clerk) but the rest of us like the language as is.
Oh, wait we're still in fiction mode...

Well then it sounds like AA is a terribly divisive policy that I'll be sure to support to foment dissent among the ranks of the living.

c. And as I said before (which you seem to have to be told twice) is that AA goes on unreported when the white male victims can't afford litigation to challenge it. The AA racists are like schoolyard bullies. They do whatever they wish, regardless of the moral aspect, and only stop when they are forced to (which with AA is rare).

Bullies are bad! Let's eat them!

The SCOTUS can make all the decisions they like. If you as a white male, apply for a job, and get handed an AA questionnaire (and you know you won't get the job if you don't fill it out), the SCOTUS isn't going to be standing there, to see to it that the racist AA employer is following the law.

Must be so hard to be a white male. I wouldn't know. I'm actually reanimated flesh, and the blue green discoloration really overpowers any former pigmentation.

The SCOTUS decision is merely procedure de jure. What the company (or govt agencies) can get away with, like the schoolyard bully, is procedure de facto (what actually takes place).

You are claiming SCOTUS has no de facto authority? Because that would be really useful when my horde arrives. I mean, usually a civilization collapses a few weeks into a zombie apocalypse; but if the judiciary is already powerless that really makes the march of the undead so much easier.

And when millions of foreigner pour into the country, hungry for jobs,

Hey, hey now! I represent an interest group of reanimated corpses who desire to pour into this country hungry for living flesh... I mean jobs... we zombies are hungry jobs... yeah, that's the ticket!

and they are in the AA preference groups (ex. Hispanic), those racist AA employers will hire THEM, rather than white Americans (but they'll probably hire the immigrant anyway, for the low wages and working conditions he'll accept).

We zombies seek ... jobs... but not your jobs... oh no, that's the Mexicans! We zombies seek other... jobs. That's right, it's the Mexicans you need to fear. We zombies only want to help you build a tall wall so you can't get away... I mean keep out anyone who could help you... I mean live free! That's right, live free! Yes, yes, yes, free range... Yes! Free range is so much tastier... I mean, more American! yeah, that's the ticket!

 

[TemplarKormac]

Wanna bet?

I'm broke man. I'd bet rep, but it's non transferable.

No, protectionist will summon up the trollish energies of Stormfront, and go on another 100 pages of nonsense.

If you're referring to that pitiful post of Zombie Pundit, no Stormfront or any web site is needed to refute stuff that refutes itself.

No. You just have no ways of refuting it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

LOL.

Protectionist got whooped again.