dagblog - Comments for "Not About Tenure. Seriously."

That might be true (I don't

Nebton — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 14:58:15 +0000

In reply to The 'tolerance' that La Raza

That might be true (I don't know anything about La Raza, so I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing), but La Raza isn't the subject.

The 'tolerance' that La Raza

Mitchell Young — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 05:21:27 +0000

In reply to No, just changing the subject

The 'tolerance' that La Raza preaches is for the tolerance of illegal immigration.

If La Raza was about tolerance, we'd seem them fighting the sort of activity I've linked to. Likewise, the ADL is *intolerant* of anyone who criticizes Israel (see the campaign against Mearsheimer and Walt). 'Tolerance' is the first, last, and only refuge of the ethnic activist group.

No, just changing the subject

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 20:38:32 +0000

In reply to No, just pointing out what La

No, just changing the subject from the intolerance of vdare contributors to the alleged misdeeds of the people these contributors despise, thereby rationalizing the intolerance. It's an old trick.

No, just pointing out what La

Mitchell Young — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:36:51 +0000

In reply to You're changing the subject.

No, just pointing out what La Raza does... and what it doesn't do.

You're changing the subject.

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:06:38 +0000

In reply to NCLR advocates for what it

You're changing the subject.

NCLR advocates for what it

Mitchell Young — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 16:24:20 +0000

In reply to NCLR advocates against racial

NCLR advocates for what it sees as 'La Raza', it is an ethnic/racial interest group. What percentage of its press releases, or its staff's time, is spent on trying to stop the racial killings between 'Latino' and black gangs in LA

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/us/17race.html

versus trying to get more of their own group into the US, whether by amnesty for illegal immigrants, legal harassment of those who enforce immigration law, or other means?

NCLR advocates against racial

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:45:56 +0000

In reply to "I believe that Duke also

NCLR advocates against racial intolerance. Taylor pretends to advocate against racial intolerance as cover for promoting racial intolerance. Like David Duke.

"I believe that Duke also

Mitchell Young — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 13:01:48 +0000

In reply to You missed my point. I

"I believe that Duke also rejects violence and calls himself a white nationalist. So what's the difference between a Taylor and a Duke?" First Duke actually was in the klan. Second Duke used to parade around in a Nazi uniform. I'm not an expert on David Duke's )or Taylor's for that matter) policy position, but I'll be there are quite a few other differences. Now I have a question for you. What's the difference between La Raza -- and yes, La Raza means biological race or breed, as in 'un perro de raza pastor aleman' -- advocating for their choosen group and Taylor's advocating for his?

You missed my point. I

Michael Wolraich — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 05:38:15 +0000

In reply to Genghis, if vdare published

You missed my point. I referenced Duke to discredit "white nationalism," since Duke offers the same "protect the white people" b.s. that you and Brimelow try to get away with. I believe that Duke also rejects violence and calls himself a white nationalist. So what's the difference between a Taylor and a Duke?

The race card is always dealt

PSU Student — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 04:39:31 +0000

In reply to Not About Tenure. Seriously.

The race card is always dealt in situations in attempt to answer the impossible. Millions and millions of tax dollars are at stake every year in attempts to understand criminals, or the criminally insane. While I do not believe Amy Bishop can use a defense of incompetent by reasons of insanity, she does not have a decent head on her shoulders. The University of Alabama, Huntsville has a making of 32% minorities in the year 2007. With a great number of minorities on campus the probability of randomly firing would be around 1 in 3, if Amy Bishop was to shoot six bullets she would approximately hit two in six minorities. With that being said, the race card should be thrown into the muck.

The underlying “cause” to this is dead money, the idea that a person needs a reason to kill is lacking in the knowledge of what actually happens in the justice system. A criminal act, in order to be prosecuted must have two things, mens rea, and actus rea; you must have the guilty mind, and commit a guilty act. Amy Bishop was on tilt, she was carrying a gun before receiving the verdict of being denied tenure. Amy Bishop was going all in with nothing.

You say “it never even crosses a healthy person’s mind” and killing never does, because criminals can hold a good bluff.