• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Many Dead in New Zealand Mosque Shooting

slick said:
Post #531 somewhat explains the difference of previous ethnic immigrations & the success they had.
Better yet -

'All these people were European. All were white. Almost all were Christian.
After each wave of immigration, there were long periods little or no immigration
that gave America time to assimilate the newcomers. And before they were fully assimilated, their children and grandchildren passed through deeply patriotic pubic and parochial schools where they were immersed in the language, literature, history and traditions of this unique people. Today, however those schools have been converted into madrassa of modernity, where it is forbidden to invoke the faith of our fathers and American history is often taught as a series of crimes against people of color.'
isbn:1429990600 - Google Search

That's why immigration from the 1860's to the 1960's for the most part worked & because of recent immigration
the fortunes of this country has tended downwards.

Celebrants of diversity always point to the successful huge waves of immigration between 1850 &
1920. They ignore these crucial elements mentioned above that then made America work.
Click to expand...

Really? Check out the anti-Irish political cartoons of years gone by. I saw candidate JFK come to my Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn and attack Nixon for his support of our then immigration policy because it was biased against Italians. Back in the days when people feared Sicilians, Irish and Russian Jews, a theory was advanced that those folks were different. You say they were "white," but the theory was they were barely white, because they came from the extreme edges of white Europe. Go back farther, and you can find an editorial in a New York paper complaining that cops would have nothing to do if there were no Irish around (they were called "Paddy wagons," after all) and, unlike previous Christians, they had a loyalty to a foreign power headquartered in Rome. Editorial cartoons portrayed them as ape-like Pope followers. Or you can find Ben Franklin complaining about the new crop of Germans arriving. Fast forward to today and we are entertained by Trump's nightmares about immigrants as snakes. The more things change, the more they remain the same, the saying goes. Each new set of arrivals is different, and those who don't like them come up with new and different reasons why the new crop can't fit in.
 
jmotivator said:
Sounds like he was listening to left wing propaganda, then.
Click to expand...
Yeah right. Rush suggested today, without any evidence, that it was a false flag attack committed by a leftist to smear conservatives. For people who keep telling others to take personal responsibility, conservatives never seem to take their own advice.
 
uptower said:
Also, does the NRA, which espouses open gun ownership for all really want to see the Muslims arming themselves to protect their mosques? I think given the right-wing mindset about race and religion, that might give them some pause.
Click to expand...

Why would they not?
 
Lursa said:
But they have enough guns that they COULD. But they dont.

That's what people should be looking at IMO...WHY they dont happen in countries where people can walk into a church or a school or a mall with a hunting rifle and kill dozens of unarmed people?

It's not the guns...it's the culture and the people.
Click to expand...

I agree culture plays a big part.
 
slick said:
So my old pal Tiger begins to chime in, I recall your evaluattions on the events of the 1860’s which were
decisively more deficient than AOC’s take on modern day economics & that’s saying something.
Move along!
Click to expand...

Yep, you thugs should definitely move along. Far right thugs have slaughtered far too many for you to sit there, continuing to spew your vile lies, and expect to be taken seriously.
 
slick said:
They were all white European ethnics mostly all Christian who were able to blend in to build the USA
into the greatest economic & military power in the world a half a century before your 'Age of Diversity'

Then all of a sudden the 'Wise Men' in Washington came up with a great policy back in 1965- massive
3rd world invasion and total surrender on the border. Let's all pretend it ain't so. Pretend if you wish
that since then the projection of US dominance has not tended downward.

The Chinese! why bring them up?
Click to expand...

Because the "heathen Chinee" were forbidden entry by your political/ideological ancestors, for some of the same reasons you advance. And the 1965 legislation you disparage ended discrimination against my Italian cousins, a bias in the existing law.

Best wisdom about our selective and ever changing prejudices comes in a line from Mel Brooks's "Blazing Saddles." As the white guy is talking about land distribution to the various railroad workers who are uniting to fight the bad guys, he says something like "We'll include the niggers and the chinks, but not the Irish."

Wake up and smell the falafel. You'll be happier.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Thnx. I live on the North Island in a very rural area. Day is starting. 8am. News remained stable overnight.
Click to expand...

Glad to hear youre safe, dude. Be well.
 
Nickyjo said:
Really? Check out the anti-Irish political cartoons of years gone by. I saw candidate JFK come to my Italian neighborhood in Brooklyn and attack Nixon for his support of our then immigration policy because it was biased against Italians. Back in the days when people feared Sicilians, Irish and Russian Jews, a theory was advanced that those folks were different. You say they were "white," but the theory was they were barely white, because they came from the extreme edges of white Europe. Go back farther, and you can find an editorial in a New York paper complaining that cops would have nothing to do if there were no Irish around (they were called "Paddy wagons," after all) and, unlike previous Christians, they had a loyalty to a foreign power headquartered in Rome. Editorial cartoons portrayed them as ape-like Pope followers. Or you can find Ben Franklin complaining about the new crop of Germans arriving. Fast forward to today and we are entertained by Trump's nightmares about immigrants as snakes. The more things change, the more they remain the same, the saying goes. Each new set of arrivals is different, and those who don't like them come up with new and different reasons why the new crop can't fit in.
Click to expand...

Unlike the poster you were responding to, I am unconvinced that the immigration waves of 1850. and 1890 to 1920, really did "fit in" over anyone's lifetime OR were an undisputed good thing. Hence, the fact that Irish and then later Sicilian's were disproportionately criminal and violent, as well as (the Irish) prone to bringing labor violence into the nation such concern was clearly valid.

And even though both are considered "white", as recently as the 1970s (if not today) such ethnic enclaves of limited assimilation to WASP culture still exist in the North-East and Chicago. (And in fact, that non-fully assimilated ethnic Catholic identity was EXACTLY what Kennedy was appealing to...).

Finally, the issue is NOT if 50 or 100 years from now if they will assimilate or fit-in, the issue is what is the cost to the American people, their national identity, and their well being by having tolerated waves of immigration (legal and illegal) since 1965? No doubt Americans NOW benefit a hundred years later in Italian Cuisine and St. Patty day beer swilling BUT we were not the ones who paid the cost in crime and environment.

By that criteria, even though I am half Irish, as a citizen of the era I'd have no problem telling Irish and Sicilians to bugger off.
 
HumblePi said:
Yes he is in part very responsible for the encouragement these radical fringe elements get directly from Trump. If this man, Brenton Tarrant actually stated that Trump is "a symbol of White Supremacy" that means he holds Trump up as an example of his own hatred for Muslims. Brenton Tarrant was very clear in who inspired him and claimed that he was motivated by “far-right extremism he saw in the United States to carry out the attack at Al Noor Mosque.” If the president of the United States denounced white supremacy from the beginning and called it what it is, an abomination to every minority in the world, this man would not be holding Trump up as an iconic figure in his war against Muslims. Who was it that first called for "a complete and total ban on all Muslims entering the country"? Oh right, that was Trump. Point made.
Click to expand...

Then Donald Trump is the second most powerful person in the world, the first being Rush Limbaugh. No, Sean Hannity. :roll:

Those who did the shooting are responsible for the massacre. They made this choice.

But let me ask you this: Is there anybody on earth who could persuade you to walk into a church or synagogue or mosque and slaughter 49 innocent human beings? If so, who is this? If there isn't, why not?
 
This is a BREAKING NEWS that i must add.

In an interview with nz prime minister jacinda adern she spoke of her telephone call by trump. Trump gave his condolences and asked if there was anything he could do.

Her reply was that he should show his support and love of the muslim community.

I cracked up laughing and thought what a clever way of telling trump to **** off.
 
maxparrish said:
Unlike the poster you were responding to, I am unconvinced that the immigration waves of 1850. and 1890 to 1920, really did "fit in" over anyone's lifetime OR were an undisputed good thing. Hence, the fact that Irish and then later Sicilian's were disproportionately criminal and violent, as well as (the Irish) prone to bringing labor violence into the nation such concern was clearly valid.
.
Click to expand...
:doh

As opposed to the British, who went (successfully pretty much) around the world and invaded countries and took over and set up dictatorships that they ran from Britain? Plundering their resources, controlling their populations, creating new laws, killing as they conquered?

And the Spanish before that?

And the Romans before that?

*sigh* such shortsightedness.
 
maxparrish said:
Unlike the poster you were responding to, I am unconvinced that the immigration waves of 1850. and 1890 to 1920, really did "fit in" over anyone's lifetime OR were an undisputed good thing. Hence, the fact that Irish and then later Sicilian's were disproportionately criminal and violent, as well as (the Irish) prone to bringing labor violence into the nation such concern was clearly valid.

And even though both are considered "white", as recently as the 1970s (if not today) such ethnic enclaves of limited assimilation to WASP culture still exist in the North-East and Chicago. (And in fact, that non-fully assimilated ethnic Catholic identity was EXACTLY what Kennedy was appealing to...).

Finally, the issue is NOT if 50 or 100 years from now if they will assimilate or fit-in, the issue is what is the cost to the American people, their national identity, and their well being by having tolerated waves of immigration (legal and illegal) since 1965? No doubt Americans NOW benefit a hundred years later in Italian Cuisine and St. Patty day beer swilling BUT we were not the ones who paid the cost in crime and environment.

By that criteria, even though I am half Irish, as a citizen of the era I'd have no problem telling Irish and Sicilians to bugger off.
Click to expand...

Holy Emma Lazarus Batman, we have a live one here!

Are your dues to the Know Nothing Party paid up? (The KKK is sooo trite.) And you haven't even mentioned Mexicans. Speaking of Mexico, they had terrible immigration problems. They let white guys into Texas, and talk about high crime rates, they brought slaves with them, against Mexican law, and they refused to assimilate, to become Catholics.

And fine, if you want to do without country western music (Irish) and the good food Italians brought in, stay in your cocoon and eat boiled meat. But crime? As Don Rickles (you ok with Jews?) said, imitating an Italian, "We're not criminals, we sell fruit."

There is no fixed national identity. It changes constantly. Why do kids now have piñatas at birthday parties? This is America: Little Richard, as black an entertainer as you can find, covers Hank Williams "Lovesick Blues," perhaps the whitest, twangiest country tune of all time. Check it out. Tony Bennett, a paisan from Queens, did the same with Williams "Cold Cold Heart." Ditto Ray Charles's cover of "Take me Home Country Roads." And speaking of Ray, is there anything more wonderful than Ray Charles "America the Beautiful." But he was freer than you appear to be, as he couldn't see.

You gotta get out more, pal.
 
Last edited:
nota bene said:
Then Donald Trump is the second most powerful person in the world, the first being Rush Limbaugh. No, Sean Hannity. :roll:

Those who did the shooting are responsible for the massacre. They made this choice.

But let me ask you this: Is there anybody on earth who could persuade you to walk into a church or synagogue or mosque and slaughter 49 innocent human beings? If so, who is this? If there isn't, why not?
Click to expand...

This is a dangerously naive post. Do you honestly believe that people are not influenced by propaganda stoking fear and hate?


Really?


What, millions of Germans just woke up one day and said. "Hey, you know those Jews? We need to build camps with ovens for them."
 
soylentgreen said:
This is a BREAKING NEWS that i must add.

In an interview with nz prime minister jacinda adern she spoke of her telephone call by trump. Trump gave his condolences and asked if there was anything he could do.

Her reply was that he should show his support and love of the muslim community.

I cracked up laughing and thought what a clever way of telling trump to **** off.
Click to expand...

trump can't do that...Part of his base are avowed bigoted white nationalists///Who are No doubt calling this guy a "hero".....trump probably thinks this guy did wrong...But What About What About ____________Fill in the Blank
 
nota bene said:
Then Donald Trump is the second most powerful person in the world, the first being Rush Limbaugh. No, Sean Hannity. :roll:

Those who did the shooting are responsible for the massacre. They made this choice.

But let me ask you this: Is there anybody on earth who could persuade you to walk into a church or synagogue or mosque and slaughter 49 innocent human beings? If so, who is this? If there isn't, why not?
Click to expand...

If there were someone who could persuade me, and they did in fact persuade me, do they not bear some responsibility for the outcome? Maybe they aren't criminally responsible, but how can they avoid sharing in the moral responsibility of fanning the flames of hatred?
 
Lursa said:
:doh

As opposed to the British, who went (successfully pretty much) around the world and invaded countries and took over and set up dictatorships that they ran from Britain? Plundering their resources, controlling their populations, creating new laws, killing as they conquered?

And the Spanish before that?

And the Romans before that?

*sigh* such shortsightedness.
Click to expand...

only you could turn a tragic event in new zealand into knocking the British....pathetic.
 
lwf said:
If there were someone who could persuade me, and they did in fact persuade me, do they not bear some responsibility for the outcome? Maybe they aren't criminally responsible, but how can they avoid sharing in the moral responsibility of fanning the flames of hatred?
Click to expand...

Fox News sends shoutouts to these crazed White Nationalists every night...trump calls them his "tough" guys
 
maxparrish said:
Unlike the poster you were responding to, I am unconvinced that the immigration waves of 1850. and 1890 to 1920, really did "fit in" over anyone's lifetime OR were an undisputed good thing. Hence, the fact that Irish and then later Sicilian's were disproportionately criminal and violent, as well as (the Irish) prone to bringing labor violence into the nation such concern was clearly valid.

And even though both are considered "white", as recently as the 1970s (if not today) such ethnic enclaves of limited assimilation to WASP culture still exist in the North-East and Chicago. (And in fact, that non-fully assimilated ethnic Catholic identity was EXACTLY what Kennedy was appealing to...).

Finally, the issue is NOT if 50 or 100 years from now if they will assimilate or fit-in, the issue is what is the cost to the American people, their national identity, and their well being by having tolerated waves of immigration (legal and illegal) since 1965? No doubt Americans NOW benefit a hundred years later in Italian Cuisine and St. Patty day beer swilling BUT we were not the ones who paid the cost in crime and environment.

By that criteria, even though I am half Irish, as a citizen of the era I'd have no problem telling Irish and Sicilians to bugger off.
Click to expand...

Wow, not a lot of open white nationalists in this forum.
 
Lursa said:
:doh

As opposed to the British, who went (successfully pretty much) around the world and invaded countries and took over and set up dictatorships that they ran from Britain? Plundering their resources, controlling their populations, creating new laws, killing as they conquered?

And the Spanish before that?

And the Romans before that?

*sigh* such shortsightedness.
Click to expand...

Shortsightedness is it? Because British, Spanish, and Roman immigration and occupation of foreign lands were a disaster to the well-being for the pre-existing populations?

Get some glasses, in case you missed it, that was my point.
 
maxparrish said:
Unlike the poster you were responding to, I am unconvinced that the immigration waves of 1850. and 1890 to 1920, really did "fit in" over anyone's lifetime OR were an undisputed good thing. Hence, the fact that Irish and then later Sicilian's were disproportionately criminal and violent, as well as (the Irish) prone to bringing labor violence into the nation such concern was clearly valid.

And even though both are considered "white", as recently as the 1970s (if not today) such ethnic enclaves of limited assimilation to WASP culture still exist in the North-East and Chicago. (And in fact, that non-fully assimilated ethnic Catholic identity was EXACTLY what Kennedy was appealing to...).

Finally, the issue is NOT if 50 or 100 years from now if they will assimilate or fit-in, the issue is what is the cost to the American people, their national identity, and their well being by having tolerated waves of immigration (legal and illegal) since 1965? No doubt Americans NOW benefit a hundred years later in Italian Cuisine and St. Patty day beer swilling BUT we were not the ones who paid the cost in crime and environment.

By that criteria, even though I am half Irish, as a citizen of the era I'd have no problem telling Irish and Sicilians to bugger off.
Click to expand...
So.... You'd turn to the half of your family that is Irish to leave the country? What about you? Birthright citizenship so you get to stay? Lol.


Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
TrueScotsman said:
This was an act of Right Wing Fascist terrorists who believed white genocide was happening, the circumstances of the funeral matter. Notice how your diagnoses includes basically doing NOTHING about this atrocity.
Click to expand...

It's just one of many. Cry me a river. It is horrid, unacceptable, but we will see more of the same with all the excuses we've heard before. The dead are soon forgotten, we are all anonymous in the mud soon enough.

Truthfully I don't care about your emotionalism or your sentiment. Toughen up, it is a cruel world. Live your life the best you can, it is the only fitting tribute. All your concerns about who killed who for what reasons and silly labeling will change nothing.
 
maxparrish said:
Shortsightedness is it? Because British, Spanish, and Roman immigration and occupation of foreign lands were a disaster to the well-being for the pre-existing populations?

Get some glasses, in case you missed it, that was my point.
Click to expand...

:doh O.M.G.

And my point was that it's not just races or ethnicities...it's all people.
 
Middle_Ground said:
My prayers go out to those that suffered from this horrible incident.
My hope going forward is now with 60 people dead from this kind of "nationalism ideology" that we can finally start calling them terrorist and catching them before this stuff happens. They are no better than any Islamic terrorists and should be treated as such.
Click to expand...

Really? If we treat white-supremacy terrorists the same way we do Islamic terrorists, we should fight for their rights and humane treatment in prison, show them sympathy for their tough upbringing, and go on a rampage of hadhtags with #NotAllWhitePeople.
 
perthbum said:
only you could turn a tragic event in new zealand into knocking the British....pathetic.
Click to expand...

But I'm ok "knocking" the Spanish and Romans? :roll:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom