[apretty]

Originally Posted by Kobi

Again, just because you dont like my views, does not give you the right to be disagreeable.

what you consider 'disagreeable' most everyone else (in this conversation) considers 'logical, linear thought' --that's about perception.

Originally Posted by Kobi

Nor does disagreeing with you have anything to do with racism. It doesnt matter if you are brown, black, yellow, white or purple. There are laws in this country about immigration for a reason. To decide arbitrarily that one will circumvent those laws because it suits one does not make it acceptable. Just as it would not be acceptable to say murder is ok. You cannot pick and choose which laws you adhere to.

before there were 'immigration laws' there was scapegoating--for the bible tells me so: leviticus chapter 16

link: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/lev/16/21-22#21

from reference.com:

scapegoat


In the Old Testament, a goat that was symbolically burdened with the sins of the people and then killed on Yom Kippur to rid Jerusalem of its iniquities. Similar rituals were held elsewhere in the ancient world to transfer guilt or blame. In ancient Greece, human scapegoats were beaten and driven out of cities to mitigate calamities. In early Roman law, an innocent person was allowed to assume the penalty of another; Christianity reflects this notion in its belief that Jesus died to atone for the sins of mankind.

Originally Posted by Kobi

But then again, it is easier to just pull out the race card and feed on emotions than it is to deal with the people deliberately and willfully breaking the law.

it's been proven and i can find a source if you'd like that racists are frequent users of the term, 'race card'. additionally, hitler was also within the law when he began to (and continued to) exterminate Jews in nazi germany. which brings up an interesting related bit of information: you do realize that the man (russell pearce) behind much of the wording and passage of the bill has neo-nazi ties, right? does that make you uncomfortable? that makes me uncomfortable.

(below) that guy on the right is pearce, the one on the left is locally known neo-nazi, JT ready.



JT Ready at a Nazi rally: (2nd from right)

Originally Posted by Kobi

Just because I see things differently doesnt mean I am not uneducated or ill informed. Again, that is liberal rhetoric to divert attention from the matter at hand by knitpicking every detail for which there is evidence for both points of view. But then again, it serves your purpose to claim superior knowledge without having a clue about what my history or experience might be. Self serving I guess.

you can see things differently, or you could also invest some time in discovering what is really going on. (and not every person that disagrees with you is a "liberal")

Originally Posted by Kobi

And that is what a knee jerk liberal is. Saying you have the only truth and your views, being more compassionate must be right, and you must quell anyone who dares to speak a different truth because it doesnt fit the program.

self-examination is rad.

Originally Posted by Kobi

One can have compassion and also be reasonable and logical. But, again, it doesnt fit the liberal agenda to have such people speak out.

who's a liberal?

i can have compassion for people and still think they're ignorant, intolerant racists:

i see more people pro SB1070 and pro a ban on ethnic studies (which you don't even mention) as a vehicle to further their racist agenda--these aren't people that were "against" racism in any way, prior to the bill--they're just now able to pretend that they hate brown people because they're "illegal" and they're now able to thinly veil their racism behind a totally fascist law that once-again targets brown people. (read: racists have been empowered by this law which totally sucks. and by racists in arizona i mean gun-carrying, no license-requiring guns allowed in bars, RACISTS.)