You realize we are discussing history?
Their violence was originally directed at Republican (black and white) leaders to intimidate them
Sorry, I don't engage in deflections. This was a news worthy story as both the POTUS nominee and the VP just gave policy speech's @ their convention. I posted the reaction from the NAACP because I am rabidly obsessed with individual freedom and liberty. I wanted to show how the NAACP stunts the growth of individualism and creates a culture of dependency w/in the community they are trying to advance.
The kids in those communities should remain dependent on the government run schools who dictate where they go, what/how they learn, and who teaches them. It's a racist thought to want to 'take' that away from them & allow them to individually choose thru a voucher and/or charter system (amongst other ideas), what the parents feel works best for the kids.
"I am a <banned> liar." -Mr.Brightside
So what would say to the gent who originally brought up the KKK in this thread?
You still do not understand how this is news (which I explained). I get it, you are not mature enough to discuss what the NAACP and other leftists are without calling someone a racist, bigot, etc .. I'm sure you go off on ur rants when a bunch of posters go off on the catholic church, their priests, etc .. or is that just acceptable to a person like urself?
I would ignore him.
I understand it's news. You still do not understand that you're incessant posting of race related news is a telling sign regarding your views.You still do not understand how this is news (which I explained).
I don't care what the NAACP has to say, quite frankly. If someone incessantly posted about catholics like you do about blacks, I would call them out on it as well. The only ranting I see is yours.I get it, you are not mature enough to discuss what the NAACP and other leftists are without calling someone a racist, bigot, etc .. I'm sure you go off on ur rants when a bunch of posters go off on the catholic church, their priests, etc .. or is that just acceptable to a person like urself?
"I am a <banned> liar." -Mr.Brightside
No, so clearly, every person can be as successful as Oprah.
How about them? With possible exceptions to the rule (sort of like your Oprah example) in order to get an immigration Visa you need to either have family here, or be sponsored by an employer. Not exactly nothing.How about all the immigrants who came here with nothing?
If we go with your premise then the poor might as well leave since they can never make money.[/QUOTE]
"I am a <banned> liar." -Mr.Brightside
51 posts and Nick still hasn't done one simple thing...post a link to the quote in the opening post.
Yes, they had their property stolen, the property they couldn’t take with them (houses, art). But the many fled with education, cash and jewels. 09 May 1939 - REFUGEES' WEALTH. £200,000 IN THREE SHIPS. MELBO... And they used that education, cash and jewels to help poor immigrants. So no, they didn’t just come with the clothes on their backs. Do you really believe your ancestors came from the peasant fields of Europe straight to America?
The same with, as you say the “Indians, Koreans, Paki's, etc”. Are you telling me that in the 80’s the US had a policy of giving visas to the poor, uneducated slum/field dwelling people of these countries? Or do you think the visas went to those who were educated with degrees?
As for Cubans, before Castro, Cuba was like most Latin American Countries, a few wealthy elites, and tons of poor. When the revolution hit, which group do you think fled?
"The first wave occurred after the Cuban revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro. A lot of the refugees came with the idea that the new government would not last long, and their stay in the US was temporary. Homes, cars, and other properties in Cuba were left with family, friends, and relatives, who would take care of them until the Castro regime would fall, however, this was promptly stopped by the Castro government, with the forced confiscation of all properties belonging to anyone leaving the country." -wikipedia
You do realize that a lot of newer (post-Castro) Cubans live in Cuban ghettos and cause crime right?
Too bad you couldn't find a single link to any. Why do you think its fair to compare outcomes of poor uneducated populations with a wealthy educated ones?
You're right about the WWII and Cuban refugees. But the Jews who came over before WWI (primarily from Russia, Poland, those areas) were mostly poor and not particularly well educated. Same for the Italians and Irish who came over during that time. These groups were upwardly mobile. Even today, the first generation Central American immigrants, who came here dirt poor and uneducated, are much more entrepreneurial than the African-Americans that have been here for generations.
One thing that helped the Irish and Italians was WWII and the GI Bill. Blacks were pretty much denied those benefits. Immigrants who were considered white (eventually) at least had that gong for them. Being white is a huge leg up.
Care to back up that statement with...anything?
Tailgating for the Phillies
Today, 09:00 AM in Philadelphia Sports