Text 26835, 170 rader
Skriven 2007-02-03 00:11:42 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
     Kommentar till en text av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
TIM RICHARDSON -> ED HULETT wrote:
 TR> On 02-02-07, ED HULETT said to ROSS CASSELL:


 RC>> Then chalk it up as a unpolite endearment he uses towards latinos whom
 RC>> cross the border illegally.


 EH>> I point out racism when I see it.


 RC>>>> Before calling him a racist, has he referred to all latinos as
 RC>>>> wetbacks?


 EH>>> He doesn't have to.


 RC>> Yes he does.


 EH>> And who says he doesn't? If he's willing to use the term in a public
 TR> forum
 EH>> he's already shown that he's a racist.



 TR> I got some bad news for you;


 TR> The term "Wetback" is yet another one of those words that got hijacked by
some
 TR> special interest group, and made out to be `racist' or `bigot' or (insert
your
 TR> favorite demonizing buzz-word here).

Good grief, one more person trying to defend the indefensible.

 TR> The term "Wetback" was used to denote those who came into the country
 TR> illegally, either by crossing one of the rivers in America that seperate
 TR> either Mexico or Canada from the United States, either by swimming,
 TR> boating or wading.

I've been around long enough to know where the term came from, Tim. It was used
by citizens of Texas to describe Mexicans who swam or waded across the Rio
Grande. It has never been used to describe anyone crossing into the US from
Canada. Never.

 TR> In the Northwest U.S. there appear to be a couple of rivers in the state
of
 TR> Washington that are in both the U.S. and Canada.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

Nice try, but no dice.

There is no river one can cross to enter Washington from Canada. They can walk
across '0' Avenue, but that doesn't make one a "wetback."

The "couple" of rivers that cross the border do so in very remote areas and
there have been no cases where Canadians have used these rivers to gain entry
into the US.

 TR> There is also the Great Lakes, four of which have shores in both Canada
and
 TR> the U.S., not to mention the Niagra River, and the St. Lawrence.

The term "wetback" isn't used for anyone coming to the US from Canada. Never
has been.

 TR> Then of course, there's the Rio Grande on the southern border.

*THAT* is where the term came from.

 TR> Somewhere along the line, a special interest group or other grabbed the
 TR> term "Wetback" and hijacked it for their own agenda.

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Good grief.

 TR> So now.....where "Wetback" used to denote someone who `swam' or `canoed'
 TR> across one of the rivers that either border or snake in and out of the two
 TR> countries to the north or south, in order to enter the country without
going
 TR> through normal border points (illegal entry, in other words), it has been
 TR> `laundered' to have an entirely unintended meaning (much like the
homosexual
 TR> agenda hijacked the word "Gay").

Total nonsense.

 TR> It is now loudly trumpheted as a `racist' hate term, and anyone using it
in
 TR> any context is immediately labeled "a racist"!

It *is* a racist term. When someone uses it, they mean only one type of person
-- Mexicans crossing into the US.

 TR> If it keeps going the way its going now.......soon you won't be able to
talk
 TR> about anything at all this country, because just about anything and
everything
 TR> you say will be "racist", or "hate-speech", or "threatening" or who knows
how
 TR> many more `creative' definitions will become taboo in the future.

Nonsense!

 TR> You already can't even bring up the `illegal alien' issue without being
 TR> labeled a `racist'. which is a big reason why few if any politicians will
even
 TR> touch the subject.

The reason behind that is that the majority of illegal aliens are Mexicans who
have come to the US illegally. Those claiming it is racist to discuss illegal
aliens are doing so to cloud the issue.

 TR> In reality....its nothing more than a sleaze-ball tactic to demonize
anyone
 TR> who *dares* to speak out about the illegal aliens who pour across our
borders
 TR> on a `daily' basis. They are verbally beaten into silence by fear of the
 TR> `racist' label.

Now, *you* are trying to cloud the issue. As long as you don't stoop to using
racist terms like "wetback" you have no reason to worry.

 TR> It isn't about "racism". Its about our borders being out of control, and
 TR> nobody on either side of the political spectrum seems to care much.

Riiiight, no one cares...

 TR> One question that *has* to come to mind is;


 TR> How many of the people killed in the 9\11\2001 attack would still be alive
if
 TR> our borders and ports were much more secure? More under the control of the
 TR> U.S., and not so easily crossed with complete immunity?

The 9/11 terrorists gained access to the US legally.

 TR> How long will it be before America gets yet anOTHer illistration of how
badly
 TR> out of control our international borders are?

Spare us the melodrama, Tim, 9/11 didn't happen because of porous borders.

The only terrorist who attempted to cross into the US to do harm was caught by
a US Customs agent in Port Angeles, WA.

Ed

-- 
"But the safety of the people of America against dangers from
foreign force depends not only on their forbearing to give
just causes of war to other nations, but also on their placing
and continuing themselves in such a situation as not to invite
hostility or insult; for it need not be observed that there are
pretended as well as just causes of war."

-- John Jay (Federalist No. 4)


Linux User#: 416016
Linux Machine#: 323569

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.13) Gecko/20060717 Debian/1.
 * Origin: Veritas Vos Leberabit! (1:123/789.0)