One Sick Mother-bleeper
One Sick Mother-bleeper
North Carolina Republican Slams Mexicans in bid to win Senate Seat.
Lots of people in the UK play Poker on the net. Online Poker sites in the UK are made up of some of the biggest high street brands like Sky, Virgin & Ladbrokes Poker.
One Sick Mother-bleeper
North Carolina Republican Slams Mexicans in bid to win Senate Seat.
June 7th, 2004 at 7:34 pm
Actually, he slams illegal immigrant Mexicans. Why do liberals always leave out that word?
June 7th, 2004 at 7:35 pm
funny, although inapporiate.
although i do agree with two out of three of this goals.
“securing our borders, stopping the illegal immigration invasion and making English the official language of the United States.”
Americans really need to get ahead of the ball on the language issue and learn mandrian chineese, that is the next biggest thing.
June 7th, 2004 at 7:36 pm
He also mentions non-English speakers “working in McDonalds” — since one assumes you can’t work unless you are legal — this would be attacking Spanish speaking immigrants. In any case, this is NORTH CAROLINA…. he’s just a hate mongerers, like Helms before him.
June 7th, 2004 at 7:52 pm
Liberals leave out the word “illegal” because in many cases — like this advertisement — the distinct impression is conveyed that the speaker’s problem is with Mexicans, not with illegals, but the speaker is trying to cover that up and still send a coded (or not so coded) message to those who agree with him. Here, the speaker seems to be sending a message about the pain and agony of having to listen to Spanish, and he ever-so-slightly tidies it up by sticking the word “illegal” in front. That’s what liberals hear.
June 8th, 2004 at 2:42 am
Hey Dawn:
.. — -.-. .- … - . / -.. — . … -. .—-. - / …. .- …- . / .- / -.-. .-.. ..- . –..– / -.. — . … / …. . ..–..
.-.. .- - . .-.
June 8th, 2004 at 6:22 am
It’s pretty unbelieveable that you’re able to decifer the code so easily and read his mind.
June 8th, 2004 at 2:26 pm
So, what you’re saying is, there’s no historical precedent for discussing immigration and illegal immigration as a euphemism for racism? That’s a totally new idea?
June 8th, 2004 at 4:39 pm
Iocaste, if you want to assume the worst in people, then you will. I’m against illegal immigration. I’ll say it any way I please. Against, against, against. Go on and call me racist. It won’t make me any less against illegal immigration. Throwing around the word ‘racist’ is a scare tactic the left uses to silence debate. Or, haven’t you heard of that before?
June 8th, 2004 at 4:51 pm
I didn’t accuse you as racist, nor did I accuse all people who protest illegal immigration as racist. Your original post implied that because the candidate used the word “illegal,” the ad must necessarily be immune from criticism. My response was to say that many such discussions of illegal immigration — not all, and not yours personally — are intended as a sly way to get across a racist message. You responded with disbelief that such a thing could occur, which I find surprising. Do you believe that sometimes people say “illegal immigrants” when they mean “non-white people”? Or do you believe that that does, sometimes, occur, but that this particular candidate’s advertisement gives no evidence of racism? Because if it’s the latter, I find it hard to imagine how an advertisement could more blatantly be using the phrase “illegal immigration” with a strong subtext of “non-white people.”
June 8th, 2004 at 5:14 pm
I was just questioning your shaky ‘could occur’, ’sometimes people say’, or ‘that that does, sometimes, occur’ comments and asking how you could know so clearly what is going on in someone else’s head or what they are really saying. The answer is that you can’t. You are making an assumption.
June 8th, 2004 at 5:31 pm
Yes, I am. I believe that sometimes pleas to curb illegal immigration are euphemisms for racism. The question, then, is how do we recognize such pleas? One way, I propose, to determine whether the advertisement focuses on the policy concerns behind limiting immigration (economics, say, or security), or whether the advertisement focuses on the cultural differences between natives and immigrants. Does that sound fair? If so, I’d say that this ad is as blatant raacist as they come. Which part of my logic is faulty?
June 8th, 2004 at 5:35 pm
I haven’t listened to the ad, I just read the accompanying article. Dawn tells me there is no way I would defend it if I did. Maybe that is so, I don’t have the time to listen to it now. I will and will get back to you.
June 8th, 2004 at 5:43 pm
Ok, just listened to the ad. Other than it being a messy ad with too much going on, I don’t see anything wrong with it. Illegal immigrants are a drain on society (in most places, actually not in NY where they pay taxes and use no services) and I don’t see a problem with saying so.
June 8th, 2004 at 5:54 pm
Well, I heard something different. I heard discussions about how Spanish speakers seemed to be taking over; about how you don’t know you’re in America because you’re surrounded by people who speak Spanish. To me, that’s the hallmark of an advertisement that is deliberately courting racism while trying to maintain a veneer of simply being about “illegal immigration.”