Text 26874, 286 rader
Skriven 2007-02-03 18:56:07 av Ed Hulett (1:123/789.0)
  Kommentar till text 26843 av John Hull (1:123/789.0)
Ärende: Presidential race
=========================
John Hull -> Ed Hulett wrote:
 JH> Ed Hulett -> TIM RICHARDSON wrote:
 EH>> 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
 EH>> 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
 EH>> hijacked by some
 TR>>> special interest group, and made out to be `racist' or `bigot' or
 EH>> (insert your
 TR>>> favorite demonizing buzz-word here).

 EH>> 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
 EH>> seperate
 TR>>> either Mexico or Canada from the United States, either by swimming,
 TR>>> boating or wading.

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

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

 EH>> Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!

 EH>> Nice try, but no dice.

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

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

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

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

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

 EH>> *THAT* is where the term came from.

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

 EH>> Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

 EH>> Good grief.

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

 EH>> Total nonsense.

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

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

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

 EH>> Nonsense!

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

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

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

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

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

 EH>> 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
 EH>> be alive if
 TR>>> our borders and ports were much more secure? More under the control
 EH>> of the
 TR>>> U.S., and not so easily crossed with complete immunity?

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

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

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

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


 JH> This is a good opportunity to make some points I doubt some those here
 JH> have considered.

 JH> I used 'wetback' with specific intent (not because I'm racist, because I
 JH> don't believe its a racist term) because I knew it would light the
 JH> afterburners of certain people.  Boy, was I right on that one!

Good grief! You aren't going to fall back on that canard, are you?

 JH> This isn't about my racism or lack thereof.  This is about people who
 JH> get all wound up in the meaning of a word to the point that it deflects
 JH> them from the real issue. They're so worried about offending somebody
 JH> that the whole issue becomes the use of that word or expression INSTEAD
 JH> OF the real issue - in this case, illegal entry into the US.

Nice try, but... no dice.

The issue can be discussed without the childish name-calling. The issue is an
important one and using racist epithets does not help in any way.

You specifically used the term "wetback" in a way to dehumanize illegals so you
could call for shooting them if they crossed the border.

 JH> This is the favorite tactic of the left (and some on the right).  Demonize
 JH> somebody for a word or expression, jump right past the real issue, and
 JH> then puff up their chests and appear as if they've solved the problem.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

Now you're claiming to be a victim?

 JH> As somebody made note of earlier, its OK, apparently, for a black to
 JH> call himself a nigger, but god help the poor bastard who isn't black if
 JH> he does the same thing.

Go right ahead and use that term if you want. Just don't whine to me if you get
called on it.

 JH> Or wetback, or kike, or any other term that many consider racist.

You know all those terms do you?

 JH> And, as I noted previously, wetback is a term
 JH> that the Mexicans called those who jumped the line long before anglos
 JH> picked it up.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

You "noted?" What was your source?

 JH> It is nothing but political correctness taken to ridiculous extremes -
 JH> completely run amok.  It is people who put form over substance, and then
 JH> declare victory, moving on to the next crisis d'jour.

Good grief, John, you got challenged on your use of a racist term, own up to
it.

 JH> The border issue is something I take very seriously, for at least the
 JH> last 25 years.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!

And all you have to show for that 25 years of concern is to call illegals
"wetbacks" and calling for them to be shot if the cross the border?

You wasted 25 years, John.

 JH> I've done everything I can to voice my opinions on it by
 JH> contacting my representatives and senators.

Did you tell your congressmen that "those wetbacks should be shot if they cross
the border?" That'd really move them to impliment your suggestions.

 JH>  I've signed petitions from
 JH> several grassroots groups lobbying for border control, and I've send
 JH> several emails to the president strongly taking him to task for his LACK
 JH> of a viable policy on immigration.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!

Took him to task, eh?

 JH> I support those running for or in
 JH> office who are attempting to do something about it beyond flapping their
 JH> jaws for press bites like most do.

Uh huh...

 JH> So, Ed, you can scream at me all you want, and call me names, but I know
 JH> what I've done to help fix that problem, and it isn't just beat my gums
 JH> about what to call criminal invaders of our country.

I haven't "screamed" at anyone, John. Nor, did I call you any names.

Oh yeah, you've done so much. Let's see... you've called them all "wetbacks"
and claimed they should be shot if they crossed the border. Yep, that's really
doing a lot.

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)