[floatingslowly]

for the record, I'm FUNK and I'm PROUD.

[Savage Clone]

I need to work on my oppression skillz.
I barely exploited anyone today.
I'm an embarrassment to my race.

[Rob Instigator]

I am hispanic AND white as hell.

I am no downpressor man.

[girlgun]

hey! check out those squirrels!

[alyasa]

I'm polynesian.

[floatingslowly]

Originally Posted by girlgun

hey! check out those squirrels!

You disgust me.


(ha ha?)

[girlgun]

Originally Posted by floatingslowly

You disgust me.


(ha ha?)

hey remember that one time i woke you up to bury the neighbor's electrocuted squirrel at 8 a.m. on a sunday morning?!?!

that WAS awesome.

[val-holla-ing]

Originally Posted by ThePits

The bread and butter of this planet are the chinese and the indians, certainly not the white europeans you seem to think

Its their economies that are fuelling the world economy

I dont know what its like to live in the USA, nor would it be right for me to take one persons version fo lfie there as representative

What I can tell you is this, life here is a hell of a lot different from what you allude to, nor are white people in this country at an advantage, quite the opposite

Its not paradise or perfect in the UK but you can work bloody hard and earn a good living regardless of race creed or colour

Probably why 1 in 5 of people who migrate to and within europe come here

Now, where did I put my advantage.........

i think you're missing what i'm trying to say.

[Rob Instigator]

Val-Holla-ing is correct

Sometime after WWII the leaders of the western world decidded who wold control what sphere of influence in the world.

The americans were "assigned" central and south america, the Japanese were to control the pacific rim and asian world. The Eurpoeans would control africa and the subcontinent. This was all very acrefully strategized and planned out and followed. When the british failed in their "control" of the middle east the americans took over that sphere by controlling israel and massive ties monetarily to the saudis.

in the world we live in today, yes, India and china have massive economies, but they are the bottom of the cghain. the top of the chain is still very much controlled by RICH WHITE MEN from america and europe.

most of the USA involvements in the middle east and in south america have been done to keep these nations from developing powerful economies. coups were staged in panama argentina chile etc with the aid and support of americans to devalue their currency.

the world, including most white people also, are at the mercy of a few thousand RICH WHITE MEN

if you choose to deny this then you are deluded or willfully ignorant.

[val-holla-ing]

watch it, man. you're pulling the card.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

Val-Holla-ing is correct

Sometime after WWII the leaders of the western world decidded who wold control what sphere of influence in the world.

The americans were "assigned" central and south america, the Japanese were to control the pacific rim and asian world. The Eurpoeans would control africa and the subcontinent. This was all very acrefully strategized and planned out and followed. When the british failed in their "control" of the middle east the americans took over that sphere by controlling israel and massive ties monetarily to the saudis.

in the world we live in today, yes, India and china have massive economies, but they are the bottom of the cghain. the top of the chain is still very much controlled by RICH WHITE MEN from america and europe.

most of the USA involvements in the middle east and in south america have been done to keep these nations from developing powerful economies. coups were staged in panama argentina chile etc with the aid and support of americans to devalue their currency.

the world, including most white people also, are at the mercy of a few thousand RICH WHITE MEN

if you choose to deny this then you are deluded or willfully ignorant.

OK where do Mulder and Scully fit into that?

[5Against1]

What about Love Crimes, huh? Sometimes a lesser sentence may apply. If I see a morbidly obese person about to consume a Big Mac and I bludgeon them, perhaps it's my way of saying "I love you brother, I don't want you to die or put undue strain on the healthcare system".

[alyasa]

I've always thought of Big Macs as a love crime...

[pbradley]

 

[Rob Instigator]

Originally Posted by ThePits

OK where do Mulder and Scully fit into that?

read your chomsky. he is meticulate about documenting all his source material

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by Rob Instigator

read your chomsky. he is meticulate about documenting all his source material

I've read Noam Chomsky and can't seem to recall him putting forward that theory anywhere

He didn't explain the man on the grassy knoll either.........

[5Against1]

Originally Posted by ThePits

I've read Noam Chomsky and can't seem to recall him putting forward that theory anywhere

He didn't explain the man on the grassy knoll either.........

Now that you mention the grassy knoll I'm wondering...Is the Zapruder Film bigger than Gone With The Wind yet? I know I've seen it at least a dozen times myself.

[fugazifan]

it is horrible that someone would oppose sexual preferance to be in the hate crime law.
and i do belive that there should be hate crime laws. not necesserilly worse punishment but definatly for the law to differentiate between crimes.
lets say there is a shopowner that owes the mob money and they burn down his shop.
and lets say that there is a shop keeper that is jewish and his shop is burnt down by neo nazis, simply for his being jewish.

so what you have is the same outcome, a burnt-down shop, and both arsonists should be arrested for the crime. but there must be awareness that one of the crimes was done because of bigotry.

its just like if a public place was blown up by either some crazy disgruntled worker or, if it was blown up by (for the sake of being current) an islamic terrorist.

[ThePits]

Originally Posted by fugazifan

it is horrible that someone would oppose sexual preferance to be in the hate crime law.
and i do belive that there should be hate crime laws. not necesserilly worse punishment but definatly for the law to differentiate between crimes.
lets say there is a shopowner that owes the mob money and they burn down his shop.
and lets say that there is a shop keeper that is jewish and his shop is burnt down by neo nazis, simply for his being jewish.

so what you have is the same outcome, a burnt-down shop, and both arsonists should be arrested for the crime. but there must be awareness that one of the crimes was done because of bigotry.

its just like if a public place was blown up by either some crazy disgruntled worker or, if it was blown up by (for the sake of being current) an islamic terrorist.

There is no difference except the motive, the crimes are exactly the same, deal with the motives on sentencing

In both examples you end up with a burnt out shop and blown up people!

[5Against1]

Originally Posted by ThePits

There is no difference except the motive, the crimes are exactly the same, deal with the motives on sentencing

In both examples you end up with a burnt out shop and blown up people!

It's just circular logic in an attempt to make some people feel better about our justice system. Discriminate against a certain group because they discriminated against a certain group. Just another sad commentary on a nation that's on life support and a feeding tube.