Topic: msnbc anchor " frustrated " bomb suspecr muslim

[nickpapageorgio81]

"I want an apology.  It is a Mexican (in the USA, mind you) holiday."  blah blah blah

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html

[nickpapageorgio81]

segregating field trips??

http://www.annarbor.com/news/black-student-only-field-trip-sparks-controversy-at-ann-arbor-elementary-school/

[mpalmer4]

Reasonable Suspicion is used (n) number of times per day throughout the country to establish probable cause.  Why is it that reasonable suspicion in the arena of immigration status must be developed without the use of a Police Officer's five senses?  I'm no fourth amendment expert, but if a feller *seems like he might not be from around here* that should be enough to justify reasonable suspicion.  If Probable Cause cannot be established, then the contact ends and he goes about his business.  

Remember kids, the only people who deserve generalization and profiling are white Anglo-Saxon Christian males, as they are ALL clearly rednecks.

And you just spelled out the problem. 

"He didn't seem like he belonged so I felt I had reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant"

Great logic.

[NebraskaVol]

 

"He didn't seem like he belonged so I felt I had reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant"

What condition were his clothes in?

[NebraskaVol]

"I want an apology.  It is a Mexican (in the USA, mind you) holiday."  blah blah blah

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local-beat/Students-Wearing-American-Flag-Shirts-Sent-Home-92945969.html

Palmer since it's all about defending the oppressed minority you have the American flag kids' back right?

[Cowboys]

And you just spelled out the problem. 

"He didn't seem like he belonged so I felt I had reasonable suspicion that he was an illegal immigrant"

Great logic.

Perfect logic, from what I can tell.

[mpalmer4]

Perfect logic, from what I can tell.

And boom goes the dynamite.

There sure are lots uh Injuns in that there Oklahoma....I wonder if dem white folks is legal citizens....

[nickpapageorgio81]

And boom goes the dynamite.

There sure are lots uh Injuns in that there Oklahoma....I wonder if dem white folks is legal citizens....

I see nor hear any boom......

[nickpapageorgio81]

There sure are lots uh Injuns in that there Oklahoma....I wonder if dem white folks is legal citizens.... ~ palmer

What exactly are you suggesting with this statement? 

Since the white man took it from the natives it is open for others (not natives)  to take it from US citizens??  and in a violent fashion?    did you know that 1 in 3 inmates in federal prisons are illegal immigrants?

all the while taking advantage of entitlements, sucking our resources dry.  all the while not learning to speak english while expecting us to learn spanish.  all the while taking jobs that are illegal for them to work.  yes texas fine the companies too, but there is such a thing as hitting a problem in multiple spots.  tell me palmer, what country allows this and survives?

look at la raza, which means the race.  tell me what would happen to me if i started a group that looks out for whites and called it the race in german?

[Cowboys]

I see nor hear any boom......

I think he's alluding to the fact that I have committed the greatest imaginable crime against humanity, which is (gasp!) "generalizing".  Libs don't understand that they do it all day long just like the rest of us.  They get upset when it's done in the context of those whom they perceive as "the disadvantaged", because libs like to pretend that they are better people than the rest of us because they care more than we do.  Libs make decision with their sissified whiny sniveling bleeding heart feelings, the rest of us use our brains.  The problem with that is that they get testy when others don't follow suit.  So I ask you libs- if you wake up at 3am to find a stinky man with a crowbar standing in your living room, are you going to offer him a latte and try to connect with his feelings?  Of course you are, it's what you sissy-boys do.  I'm going to ensure he causes no harm to me or my family and if he survives, let one of you ponytail-wearing Prius-driving state-appointed counselors get in touch with his feminine side once he's behind bars.

[nickpapageorgio81]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLgZ1LWLlko&feature=player_embedded

[mpalmer4]

I think he's alluding to the fact that I have committed the greatest imaginable crime against humanity, which is (gasp!) "generalizing".  Libs don't understand that they do it all day long just like the rest of us.  They get upset when it's done in the context of those whom they perceive as "the disadvantaged", because libs like to pretend that they are better people than the rest of us because they care more than we do.  Libs make decision with their sissified whiny sniveling bleeding heart feelings, the rest of us use our brains.  The problem with that is that they get testy when others don't follow suit.  So I ask you libs- if you wake up at 3am to find a stinky man with a crowbar standing in your living room, are you going to offer him a latte and try to connect with his feelings?  Of course you are, it's what you sissy-boys do.  I'm going to ensure he causes no harm to me or my family and if he survives, let one of you ponytail-wearing Prius-driving state-appointed counselors get in touch with his feminine side once he's behind bars.

I'm willing to admit that I have biases, generalize, etc.

But, what I do not do, is generalize that "someone who doesn't look like he's from around here" is an illegal immigrant. 

If I had to, I would defend against an intruder. But I fail to see what that has to do with illegal immigrants? Are you suggesting all home invasion robberies are done by illegal Mexicans? From my understanding, many home invasion robberies are done by black people. Should we start asking if they are legal? Or are they from Kenya? 

[Cowboys]

"I would defend against an intruder. But I fail to see what that has to do with illegal immigrants?"

And that sir, is why your retort has left you eating dust.  I ask only that you don't make me spell it out for you; it would simply be too painful for you to endure.

[mpalmer4]

"I would defend against an intruder. But I fail to see what that has to do with illegal immigrants?"

And that sir, is why your retort has left you eating dust.  I ask only that you don't make me spell it out for you; it would simply be too painful for you to endure.

You hate Mexicans. That's cool. You think they are a bunch of criminals. I'm guessing you've had many encounters with people you knew were illegal immigrants and they tried to harm you in some way. I can see how you'd get that bad impression when that happens.

[Cowboys]

You hate Mexicans. That's cool. You think they are a bunch of criminals. I'm guessing you've had many encounters with people you knew were illegal immigrants and they tried to harm you in some way. I can see how you'd get that bad impression when that happens.

Nice attempt at the Hegelian Dialectic.  A classic, yet tired liberal tactic.  It doesn't work on those of us who recognise it.

[mpalmer4]

Nice GOP tactic of scootin around the issue.

[Cowboys]

Nice GOP tactic of scootin around the issue.

The irony in this thread is priceless.

[Cowboys]

I say I don't approve of illegal immigration.
Dude says I hate Mexicans (and therefore am a racist).
This is the part where I'm supposed to gasp and meekly suggest that I'm not a racist.
Then he suggests that I prove it.
Then I'm supposed to issue a statement that not only am I not a racist, but that I will be contributing money to La Raza to prove it.
At this point, he points at me and exclaims that I'm a racist and gave money to La Raza, which is clearly proof of pandering.
etc.
etc.
etc.

The way to avoid that trap is to break the chain by refusing to abide the initial assertion (thesis) that I am a racist.

All that said, This is a message board, not a real high-stakes political arena.  Do I think Palmer wants me to contribute to La Raza?  No.  Was I extrapolating a bit on his behalf?  Yeah.  Do I really think he was consciously employing any "tactic"?  Nah.  Was he being disingenuous?  No.  I think he actually believes that stuff and has been trained (I would guess by modern academia) to respond to stimuli in certain ways, which come across to me in this case as the Hagelian Dialectic.   

I call it a "liberal tactic" because those are the people I catch using it most often.  Well, that and the fact that it's been used by Marxists and Communists for generations now.  Some right-wing authors/bloggers/pundits (Moonbattery.com is a prime example) try it as well, but don't have nearly the success.  The prevailing political (political correctness) climate favors those on the left. 

[nickpapageorgio81]

Here's how I'd describe this discussion, ala Princess Bride:

Texas: You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah?
Nick: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain subjective subject matter.
Texas: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro?
Nick: Naturally... but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don't you?
Texas: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have.

Please homey.... I am THE master of Soresu!

[NebraskaVol]

Texas did you get your keyboard cleaned up good?

[mpalmer4]

I say I don't approve of illegal immigration.
Dude says I hate Mexicans (and therefore am a racist).
This is the part where I'm supposed to gasp and meekly suggest that I'm not a racist.
Then he suggests that I prove it.
Then I'm supposed to issue a statement that not only am I not a racist, but that I will be contributing money to La Raza to prove it.
At this point, he points at me and exclaims that I'm a racist and gave money to La Raza, which is clearly proof of pandering.
etc.
etc.
etc.

The way to avoid that trap is to break the chain by refusing to abide the initial assertion (thesis) that I am a racist.

All that said, This is a message board, not a real high-stakes political arena.  Do I think Palmer wants me to contribute to La Raza?  No.  Was I extrapolating a bit on his behalf?  Yeah.  Do I really think he was consciously employing any "tactic"?  Nah.  Was he being disingenuous?  No.  I think he actually believes that stuff and has been trained (I would guess by modern academia) to respond to stimuli in certain ways, which come across to me in this case as the Hagelian Dialectic.   

I call it a "liberal tactic" because those are the people I catch using it most often.  Well, that and the fact that it's been used by Marxists and Communists for generations now.  Some right-wing authors/bloggers/pundits (Moonbattery.com is a prime example) try it as well, but don't have nearly the success.  The prevailing political (political correctness) climate favors those on the left. 

I actually just think you hate Mexicans. That was my point. 

[NebraskaVol]

How about Eric Holder admitting he's hasn't read Arizona's law, the same law he's been savaging in the media?

        

[nickpapageorgio81]

How about Eric Holder admitting he's hasn't read Arizona's law, the same law he's been savaging in the media?

        

I believe this bombshell deserved its own thread!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoslK47z_X0

[Cowboys]

I actually just think you hate Mexicans. That was my point. 

My Imperial Wizard says not to get distracted by the Mexicans.

[nickpapageorgio81]

How about Eric Holder admitting he's hasn't read Arizona's law, the same law he's been savaging in the media?

        

Another admits he hasn't read the law.
http://www.breitbart.tv/state-department-spokesman-critical-of-arizona-law-admits-he-too-hasnt-read-it/

texas, you should read the comments.