man, it must suck to be a poor white boy in this country.... 😟

DrafterX wrote:

Being poor sucks regardless.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Your memory is correct, but on the third thing it was viewed as a negative only by those trying to kill her nomination by trying to paint the orginization as something it isn't.

Also, their primary mission is being a Hispanic civil rights association, like the NAACP, and they have been around for 100 years or so. So I guess the NAACP would also be racist too since their name has 'colored' in it. You may disagree with their stances on some of the issues, but that doesn't mean they are racist or un-american.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Sotomayers camp denied the affiliations.
Probably because the group leaders do very little to thwart the fringe racist shenanigans because they know it probably helps increase their enrollment in the long run.

The strength of their "Hispanic civil rights association" is based on the sheer number of Latinos living in the US.
This is boosted if you include the criminals who came here illegally. Likewise, it's hindered somewhat if you don't.

I applaud much of what they do. They advertise a respectible goal that is mutually beneficial for both America and her favorite cousin to the south.
But the reality of militant rallies and boycotts of innocent business owners just to make their point is far from being an advocate for peaceful change.
And the more they push for a blanket of amnesty, the more our borders will suffer an immediate influx in hopes that they can beat the clock.

tailgater wrote:

I stated:

"I applaud much of what they do. They advertise a respectible goal that is mutually beneficial for both America and her favorite cousin to the south.
But the reality of militant rallies and boycotts of innocent business owners just to make their point is far from being an advocate for peaceful change.
And the more they push for a blanket of amnesty, the more our borders will suffer an immediate influx in hopes that they can beat the clock."




Fuzz claims that this:

".. is disagreement on policy, yet it's framed as racist or un-American. "



It would be nifty keen if you'd elaborate somewhat. Because I see this as more than just a policy difference.
And I didn't frame anything as racist, other than to point out their M.O.

tailgater wrote:

Your very first post defended the idea that La Raza had a racist agenda.

"but are you saying that this group doesn't promote the racist and anti-american agenda that the original post claims?

I've done zero research, but have heard similar claims in the past from credible sources. "

Pointing out that their M.O. is racist isn't framing anything as racist? What the hell?

Your objection has been from the start that they support 'amnesty', I've looked back at your posts and not seen what else you find objectionable, as you've even repeated here you 'applaud' their efforts.

So unless there is something else you aren't saying here that you object to, that's a policy difference on how to handle the immigration problem.

FuzzNJ wrote:

...Your objection has been from the start that they support 'amnesty', I've looked back at your posts and not seen what else you find objectionable, ....
.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Fuzz,
I responded to your post that says:

I don't remember her denying the affiliation at all, only combating the lies about what the organization is.

The rest is disagreement on policy, yet it's framed as racist or un-American.

Since your first sentence seemed to be in direct response to the post you were quoting, I naturally assumed that your second sentence was likewise in response to the remainder of my post that you quoted.

A flaw in the system, perhaps, but one severrely exacerbated when you use the "Quote" response then randomly reference earlier posts.

tailgater wrote:

Actually, Fuzz, I find it hard to believe that you "looked back" at my posts, because it's clear as day:
I find their boycotts to be quite objectionable, and rather anti-American considering that they're boycotting private businesses based on the local political decisions.

Also, their anti-American displays at their rallies (upside down flags, etc) is quite objectionable.
Oh yeah. And unAmerican.

tailgater wrote:

I did miss that though, you're right.

So you must find the Tea Party Un-American as well since there have been a number of incidents where they have flown the flag upside down at rallies. If one were consistant and all.

FuzzNJ wrote:

I did miss that though, you're right.

So you must find the Tea Party Un-American as well since there have been a number of incidents where they have flown the flag upside down at rallies. If one were consistant and all.

FuzzNJ wrote:

TEA PARTY SUBJECT CHANGE OUTRAGE!

HockeyDad wrote:

I've not heard of nor seen such a display, but I'll take your word on it.
And YES, I do see that as being unAmerican.
But you and I both know that there are far more examples of actual ANTI-American symbolism at the rallies staged by la Raza. To the point where it's difficult to understand their motive due to the obvious contradiction.

You see, the Tea Party displays a strong America First slogan. The controversy only arises when one disects what their vision of America is versus one's own personal belief.
Old Glory is usually a prominent feature. Upright. And waving proudly.
Whereas la Raza emphasises the Latino culture and Mexico in particular. Heck, if you search for pictures from virtually ANY la Raza event, even when the American flag is flown upright it's typically below the Mexican flag.

There's hardly any comparison on this point, and I think you'll agree.

tailgater wrote:

The u s flag upside down and sign of distress now weaving a distressed flag with a foreign nation above that is a different matter.

ZRX1200 wrote: