🚀 go-pugleaf

BD <bodu@mailbox.com> wrote:
>Except that blacks are, normally, law abiding citizens..
>Wetback is a term for a criminal. Like, well.. all those slang words for
>criminals.

I don't want to sound racist, but last time I checked, african-americans
were the large majority of the people in prisons.

-- 
Victor M. Martinez, Jr.           |         The University of Texas at Austin
martiv@che.utexas.edu             |        Department of Chemical Engineering
http://www.che.utexas.edu/~martiv | "What do they think I am... an engineer?"
  If we knew what we were doing it would not be called research, would it?  

Sassoon wrote:

>  I can not honestly say what even I would do if I had to
> watch my children go hungry because I had no work/income to provide for
> them. I can not honestly say HOW I would go about trying to get them/me to a
> better place where they CAN prosper. Try to play the "transference" game and
> put myself/yourself in their place

Maybe you would be smart for the sake of your children and go to some other
country legally rather than risk jail time and or other harm that might befall
you if you illegally break in.

Victor M. Martinez wrote:

> BD <bodu@mailbox.com> wrote:
> >Except that blacks are, normally, law abiding citizens..
> >Wetback is a term for a criminal. Like, well.. all those slang words for
> >criminals.
>
> I don't want to sound racist, but last time I checked, african-americans
> were the large majority of the people in prisons.
>
> --

ACME, Can o' worms:     "POP"

Tracey Levin wrote:

> Erik carved into stone:
>
> > : I recall a certain tenured UT professor saying vaguely similiar things like that
> > : on national television and it earned him a large protest rally featuring Jesse
> > : Jackson, complaints filed with the associated office for such things, threats of
> > : lawsuits, and threats from certain nlegislators to terminate his emplyment.
>
> Erik, that professor was not terminated, but he helped to point to problems caused
> byAffirmative Action and liberal university administrators.
> It seems as though you would not mind if the US became occupied by mexicans from
> Mexico.
> Consider the following:
>
> HUEJUTLA, Mexico (AP) -- Hundreds of residents of this central Mexican city banded
>                            together Thursday and lynched two men accused of trying to
> kidnap four girls from an
>                            elementary school.
>
>                            Jose Santos Vazquez and Salvador Valdez allegedly tried to
> force the girls -- ages 9 to 11
>                            -- into their pickup truck Wednesday in front of a school
> in Huejutla, 120 miles north of
>                            Mexico City.
>
>                            Early Thursday, more than 1,000 townspeople -- many drunk
> and some carrying guns --
>                            stormed the jail and dragged the bloodied men into the
> central square. They hanged one of
>                            the men from a kiosk and beat the other man to death on the
> ground.
>
>                            Police were unable to stop the crowd because of its size.
>
>                            The townspeople also set the courthouse on fire and burned
> five patrol cars as well as the
>                            accused men's pickup truck.

  Wild vigelantism obviously is not a good thing.  But the occasional high profile
incident like this will sure as Hell make the next two guys driving by your daughters
elementary school think twice.  If you posted this as an example of why Mexicans are bad
people, it backfired.  Sound like good folks to me.

This reminds me of an unrelated story.  Back in the old days (during the age of sail I
believe, recalling from a highly enjoyable Naval history class I took 4 yrs ago), US
sailors were treated poorly at a port village of some 3rd world nation.  The
Admiral/Captain was incensed by this, so we shelled the village.  They got the wrong
village!!  Nonetheless, US sailors were treated very well thereafter.  (not sure what the
point of bringing that up is, just found it interesting).

Tracey Levin wrote:
> 
> Sassoon wrote:
> 
> >  I can not honestly say what even I would do if I had to
> > watch my children go hungry because I had no work/income to provide for
> > them. I can not honestly say HOW I would go about trying to get them/me to a
> > better place where they CAN prosper. Try to play the "transference" game and
> > put myself/yourself in their place
> 
> Maybe you would be smart for the sake of your children and go to some other
> country legally rather than risk jail time and or other harm that might befall
> you if you illegally break in.


Some other country?  Name the courty.  Decribe in detail their method(s)
of tranportation.  Much much money will it take to their trip and how
much money do they have? (And while we're at it: What proportion their
yearly income is that sum?)  And lastly, what are their prosepects when
the get there.

No, the fact is that risking jail time *IS* often their best option. 
The fact that you don't understand this fact, points specifically to why
you misunderstand issues of imigration policy!



Can I get an Amen!



Simon

Victor M. Martinez wrote:

>
>
> I don't want to sound racist, but last time I checked, african-americans
> were the large majority of the people in prisons.

Now see, that is where we have fallen off the edge of the world....we are so damn
worried that we might offend someone, that we are preface any statement that
might be misconstrued with a politically correct statement just to make sure that
everyone knows what we really mean..  What a bunch of wimpy men.  Stop bending
over and grabbing your ankles out of fear.  Stand up and be a man, Victor.  Say
what you think, not what you think others want you to say!!!!   Heck, as a woman,
I have much more latitude to say what I want without fear, but even if I were
male, I would never ever allow the idiots on the left side of the equation to
control my speech.  Isn't that one of the terrible things about communists??
They make people walk a politically correct line with respect to what can say, or
do?  Sure it is.  As a communist, you could never speak your mind like we can
here, but obviously, that era may be closing if we allow the nutty leftists to
have their way.  And, please understand that when I say left, leftists,
socialists, and communists, I may be referring to the Democratic party members
and especially it's  leadership.  For many of them  fill the bill.

Pink Chicken wrote:

> Amazing.  You just managed to fit in a completely racist term to denote illegal
> immigrants and also somehow managing to denote the entire culture as well.  Haven't
> you learned by now that wetbacks is a derogatory and racist term used to denote any
> person of Hispanic race?  I'm offended by your complete ignorance, and I'm sure a
> large portion of this newsgroup is as well.  I suggest you choose your words more
> carefully next time.

Thought police?  Sorry, I don't play that game.  I know what "wetback" means, but you
do not.
A "wetback" is someone who illegally crosses the border, or breaks into the country not
unlike a robber breaking into your home.
No wetbacks are welcome here.   INS is doing a poor job, but I strongly support the
fines they impose on businesses who hire wetbacks.
You should be ashamed of yourself trying to control what other people think or write.
That is totally un-American.  You can comment  that you disagree with what I say, or
how I say it, but to tell me that I should choose my words more carefully indicates
that you have no idea about what's contained within the First Amendment.
Are you also calling for BET to stop allowing the word "nigger" to be aired?

By the way.  Liberals are calling for metal detectors to be placed into the school
where the shooting occurred.  What's wrong with that picture??????
Many things, but the big question is how would the detectors have kept this shooting
from happening when it occurred outside the school building near where the guns had
been kept in a van until needed??
Damn Stupid Liberals.

Mothers.., quite your job and stay home with your children.
Fathers, be decent and honorable men who are slow to anger.
Be highly supportive of the mother of your children.  Nothing gives them
a greater sense of security.

Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
(wrote a bunch of liberal BS)

Craig, you first thanked me for stating that you are a liberal, now
you're doing a Clinton back-peddle.  Craig, if you are pro-homosexual
rights, pro-abortion on demand, and favor Affirmative Action, you
qualify for free membership to NOW, ACLU, and GLAAD.  Im certain you
would not call yourself a "Republican".
Liberals like yourself often push for government programs rather than
face the real cause of a problem.  To a liberal, government is almost
always the answer.  If only liberals would "Legalize Freedom".
Affirmative Action is immoral at best, but probably illegal because it
favors one race over another.  The root problem is that liberals believe
a certain percentage of minorities should be present in our
universities, however, these same liberals never stop to consider the
real reasons behind the low levels of  minority students in our
schools.  
Failing inner city schools must take some of the blame.  But, why are
these schoools failing?  Are the students being insturcted in subjects
that will prepare them for college?  What about their family life?
Do they have a very concerned parent at home? Do they have both parents
at home?  A home with dedicated parents is the best environment for any
child.  Liberalism often trys to replace parents with government
programs, but this never works.  Students need and require a solid
family sturcture where there is at least one very concerned parent
helping the child all along the way.  There are exceptions to this rule,
but in general, children must be brought up properly if we expect them
to function properly.  Government programs and hired hands are no
substitute for a warm, caring family environment where education is
given high priority.  Clearly, liberals like yourself are out of touch
with reality when you use terms like racism to describe the reason why
so few minority students attend college, or post graduate programs.
This is but one more example of how liberals like to divert blame. 
Rather than hold the student or the parents at fault, blame is shifted
off onto another race.  If you're going to hand me a list of social
causes, don't until you explain to me why asian students who come here
from a totally different country and culture can accomplish what native
minority students seemingly cannot.
The excuses given for libearalism are old, tired, and dead.

EgOiStE-Felipe Campos wrote:
> 
> In article
> <Pine.LNX.3.96.980327142047.19689E-100000@bowler.cs.utexas.edu>, "Mark N.
> Hattarki" <gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
> >Lulac was founded to stop such injustices. Though, they were not very
> >successful, especially in Texas. Radical? There is a problem if
> >you see other's belief that they should have rights as Radical. But, then
> >again, there's also a problem if you think being "radical" is a bad thing.
> >Leftwing? Kinda? But I seen your point. Liberals are almost as
> >moronic as conservatives.
> 
> Actually LULAC has had a reputation for beign assimilationist pigs,
> preferring to promote change thru "infiltration of the white establisment"
> (my words) rather than in your face radical political movement.  The
> National Chapter's refusal to support a boycott by some upstart Floridians
> is just another instance where your radicals can point to and say "I told
> you so".

Big deal. Dinky Lives.

> Mark N. Hattarki wrote: 
> The whites that settled this country, invaded. They did so without the
> permission of the people that lived here (Native Americans). 
You forgot to include Spainards, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, there were
others besides whites that settled here. This statement of your's leads
me to believe that you are attacking whites...Is this true, or did you
subconciensly post this?
> So, (by your illogic at the very least) they invaded. Right? Since immigrants from
> Mexico invading this country is wrong, it also follows that the whites
> that came from Europe are also wrong in invading. Correct?
Yes, they were wrong to invade the Native Americans and take their land
from them. The Europeans/Settlers were smarter and stronger than the
Natives, therefore they took everything away from them! Your post leads
me to believe you think that the Mexicans are trying to conquer America
and trying to take their land back(INSERT THREAD HERE) What you have to
remember is, if it weren't for those Europeans, this country, no better
yet, this Earth would not be the place that is today. I bet you probably
wouldn't even have that computer to post these thoughtless posts on.
Right? (INSERT THREAD HERE) Ok, think of it like this: Border patrol is
simply America defending it's territory. How's that?  
> Why, because you consider yourself to be a part of them, and you don't think that you > are capable of doing something wrong or immoral! So, you must defend them. This is > your arrogance!
Hey buddy, where are you living at? I guess YOU don't feel too bad about
it, you're still in the USA. Right?
> Humbleness is a virtue that most of us need improvement with (myself
> included). See, liberals believe that drug should be legal and cigarettes
> should be outlawed (your statements) which you believe to be a
> contradiction. What you don't realize is, believing that drugs should be
> illegal and cigarettes should be legal, would then also be a
> contradiction.
> 
> Your shit stinks as much as any liberal I've ever met!
Um, Uh, Excuse me, but that's a personal attack. Are you PREJUDICE
against liberals. BTW, I am not a Liberal.

-- 
 Dennis or Barbara Taylor
 mailto: denhou74@swbell.net
 homepage: http://home.swbell.net/denhou74/index.html
 Bass Tab: http://home.swbell.net/redhottab.html

tracey12@swbell.net wrote:
> Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> (wrote a bunch of liberal BS)

Funny how you never actually respond to any specific point I make. Maybe
because you can't defend your stance against my evidence.
 

> Liberals like yourself often push for government programs rather than
> face the real cause of a problem. 

You have things in reverse. More often liberals look for the root of 
the problem to stop it there. A joke made by a former history professor
of mine on solutions to crime illustrates my point. He stated how Democrats
try to stop the social conditions that cause crime to occur and  Republicans,
they just want to lock everybody up.

> To a liberal, government is almost
> always the answer.  If only liberals would "Legalize Freedom".

Who is the group trying to limt the rights of women and minorities?

> Affirmative Action is immoral at best, but probably illegal because it
> favors one race over another.  

Affirmative action, when used correctly, balances out the races when 
whites try to give preference to other whites over minorities. I will 
say affirmative action has extended far beyond its original intent
and should be scaled back, but should not be done away with.

>The root problem is that liberals believe
> a certain percentage of minorities should be present in our
> universities, 

I oppose quotas. 

> however, these same liberals never stop to consider the
> real reasons behind the low levels of  minority students in our
> schools. 

No, the reasons behind the low levels of minority students in our schools
is the reason affirmative action is in place to begin with.
 
> Failing inner city schools must take some of the blame.  But, why are
> these schoools failing? 

Look at the differentials in funding to start. Ever heard of Edgewood vs Kirby?

> Are the students being insturcted in subjects
> that will prepare them for college?  

Are you advocating the institution of national standards for subject matter 
to be taught? Maybe you aren't so conservative after all. That's something
many liberals such as myself are in favor of.

> What about their family life?
> Do they have a very concerned parent at home? Do they have both parents
> at home? 

Parents are crucial to children getting an adequate education, but if both
parents have to work to make ends meet, that leaves little time for their
children. Many liberals support programs that would help these parents. 
Many conservatives don't since that costs the government money.

> A home with dedicated parents is the best environment for any
> child. 

I agree as should most people.

> Liberalism often trys to replace parents with government
> programs, but this never works.  

No they try to give parents more oppurtunities to be involved with their
children's education. 

> Students need and require a solid
> family sturcture where there is at least one very concerned parent
> helping the child all along the way.  There are exceptions to this rule,
> but in general, children must be brought up properly if we expect them
> to function properly. 

You are drifting away from the issue.

> Government programs and hired hands are no
> substitute for a warm, caring family environment where education is
> given high priority.  

Then what is your solution to the problem of lower and middle class families 
needing two incomes to just survive while the affluent (with all their tax
breaks) can afford to only have one person working.

> Clearly, liberals like yourself are out of touch
> with reality when you use terms like racism to describe the reason why
> so few minority students attend college, or post graduate programs.

Um, I come from an area of Texas where I AM in the minority. I am quite
verse in the educational problems of this country. I've considered entering
the teaching profession. I've been to conferences discussing the problems
and potential solutions to the problems in our education system. Perhaps the
more famous of these conferences was the Education 2000 Conferences
held across the country from 1992-93. 

> This is but one more example of how liberals like to divert blame. 

No, diverting blame solves nothing. That is why reform is needed. But in the
mean time, we cannot allow higher education to continue to use racist
admission standards while we fix what's wrong with our public education
system.

> Rather than hold the student or the parents at fault, blame is shifted
> off onto another race. 

No. Who is blaming the white students not admitted? Not I. It isn't their
fault that at one time racism and segreation caused many minorities to
get a second class education. It is our responsibility to rectify the problem.
Not doing so only causes it to persist. Many throw up barriers to changes
that would recitify the problems. Other stir up trouble only making things
worse. Books like  "The Bell Curve" use misleading statistics to come to 
conclusions that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites because
of their IQ differentials, yet fail to consider the fact that blacks have been
held back educationally in this country due to segregation, lower school
funding, stereotyping, etc. 

> If you're going to hand me a list of social
> causes, don't until you explain to me why asian students who come here
> from a totally different country and culture can accomplish what native
> minority students seemingly cannot.

Please explain when asians (WWII intermine camps aside) were treated
like blacks and hispanics have been. Explain when there was systematic,
rampant discrimination against them. See the difference.


Craig K. Gowens
 Hook'em Horns


University of Texas Athletic Web Page:
http://www.utexas.edu/athletics/

"I feel a little sleazy about [stalling the game to reach the 4:00 
curfew], but it helps to be prideless in that situation."
   --Augie Garrido, after Texas beat LSU in a curfew shortened game

"Quit calling it 'stalling' and call it 'time mangement' as it is
known in football and basketball, and glorify the coach who can use
it to his team's advantage."
   --"Ballgirl", fellow Texas Baseball nut and frequent poster on
     gobig12.com BBS, commenting on Garrido's "stalling" vs LSU

Tracey Levin wrote:

> Victor M. Martinez wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I don't want to sound racist, but last time I checked, african-americans
> > were the large majority of the people in prisons.
>
> Now see, that is where we have fallen off the edge of the world....we are so damn
> worried that we might offend someone, that we are preface any statement that
> might be misconstrued with a politically correct statement just to make sure that
> everyone knows what we really mean..  What a bunch of wimpy men.  Stop bending
> over and grabbing your ankles out of fear.  Stand up and be a man, Victor.  Say
> what you think, not what you think others want you to say!!!!   Heck, as a woman,
> I have much more latitude to say what I want without fear, but even if I were
> male, I would never ever allow the idiots on the left side of the equation to
> control my speech.

You're a woman?  I've always thought you were a guy...  Wonder what St. Paul thinks
about vocal women who debate amongst men...

Michael A. Koenecke wrote:
> Action
> >
> > Affirmative Action has been one of the most progressive programs ever under-
> > taken by our government. Has it grown too big? Probably. Should it be totally
> > scraped? No way. By removing Affirmative Action, UT is back in a racist
> > criteria of addmission of its Law School.
Craig, that is such lunacy!  "Racist criteria"???  What a flaming
liberal!  It's so easy for you liberals to use the word "racist"!
To a socialist, everyone must be on the same level. If they are not,
then the power of government should be brought to bear.  
Craig, AA is nothing more than racial discrimination because it places
one or more races above another. 
 AA promotes the ungualified to a position they do not deserve.

 Mike,
What party has been known for pushing Affirmative Action?
What political party would stand to benefit from such legislation?
Are you aware that some schools are automatically accepting the
Top Ten Percent of any High School?  This is a new way to circumvent 
Hopwood. 
 The Socialists strike again!---or should I say the Democrats?

On Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:59:16 -0600, Tracey Levin <tracey12@swbell.net> wrote:

>
>
>Victor M. Martinez wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I don't want to sound racist, but last time I checked, african-americans
>> were the large majority of the people in prisons.
>
>Now see, that is where we have fallen off the edge of the world....

I'll do you a favor and I will take your flat-earth statement as being
rhetorical...

>we are so damn
>worried that we might offend someone, that we are preface any statement that
>might be misconstrued with a politically correct statement just to make sure that
>everyone knows what we really mean..  

A little caution in one's speech can earn one a great deal of cerditibility and
respectability. Having thrown this to the wind, your creditibility is minimal,
and practically no one respects you.


 - Erik Smith
[       http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu      ]
[ Writings, thoughts, Dream Theater MIDI, ]
[ and that "E/" thing - all in one place. ]

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:40:43 -0600,
NOSPAMckgowens@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL (Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of
the SWC)) wrote:

>> but he helped to point to problems caused
>> byAffirmative Action
>
>Affirmative Action has been one of the most progressive programs ever under-
>taken by our government. Has it grown too big? Probably. Should it be totally
>scraped? No way. By removing Affirmative Action, UT is back in a racist
>criteria of addmission of its Law School. Perhaps the BIGGEST flaw in the
>5th Circuit's ruling is that it let UT keep its "legacy" policy of giving
>favoritism to the siblings or other close relatives of UT Law School grads.

However, if this criteria were eliminated, what discriminatory admissions
standards would there be? None, 'far as I know. It would seem simpler just to
can the one preferrential program instead of having two competing preferreintial
programs...


 - Erik Smith
[       http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu      ]
[ Writings, thoughts, Dream Theater MIDI, ]
[ and that "E/" thing - all in one place. ]

tracey12@swbell.net wrote:
> Michael A. Koenecke wrote:
> > >
> > > Affirmative Action has been one of the most progressive programs
ever under-
> > > taken by our government. Has it grown too big? Probably. Should it
be totally
> > > scraped? No way. By removing Affirmative Action, UT is back in a racist
> > > criteria of addmission of its Law School.
> Craig, that is such lunacy!  "Racist criteria"???  What a flaming
> liberal!  It's so easy for you liberals to use the word "racist"!
> To a socialist, everyone must be on the same level.

I'm not a socialist. I'm not a communist either. Why is it many conservatives
accuse liberals of being socialists/communists. I could do the same and accuse
you Tracey of being a facist.

> If they are not,
> then the power of government should be brought to bear.  
> Craig, AA is nothing more than racial discrimination because it places
> one or more races above another. 
>  AA promotes the ungualified to a position they do not deserve.

Wrong, it removes discrimination in areas its likely to occur. College
addmissions
have alsways been an area where discrimination has occured. Just look at
the court
rulling that forced UT to institute an affirmative action addmissions
policy in the
first place. Rarely do "unQualified" persons get selected over qualified
persons.
In the Hopwood case, the minorities selected over Susan Hopwood, et al,
had comparable
if not identical test scores. Hopwood's cases was based on the fact that in the 
bottom bracket of addmission test scores, the rate of addmission of minoritites
was higher than the rate for whites. Both the whites and minorities were in the
same group that were equally qualified for addmission.

 
>  Mike,
> What party has been known for pushing Affirmative Action?
> What political party would stand to benefit from such legislation?
> Are you aware that some schools are automatically accepting the
> Top Ten Percent of any High School?  This is a new way to circumvent 
> Hopwood. 
>  The Socialists strike again!---or should I say the Democrats?

Schools have been accepting the top ten percent automatically for years.
That is a
totally merit based addmission standard. The only complaint one can have
of it is
that in absolute terms, one high school may be better than another, but
then again,
the top ten percent respresents only a small portion of a university's class.



Craig K. Gowens
 Hook'em Horns


University of Texas Athletic Web Page:
http://www.utexas.edu/athletics/

"I feel a little sleazy about [stalling the game to reach the 4:00 
curfew], but it helps to be prideless in that situation."
   --Augie Garrido, after Texas beat LSU in a curfew shortened game

"Quit calling it 'stalling' and call it 'time mangement' as it is
known in football and basketball, and glorify the coach who can use
it to his team's advantage."
   --"Ballgirl", fellow Texas Baseball nut and frequent poster on
     gobig12.com BBS, commenting on Garrido's "stalling" vs LSU

> Just a couple of weeks ago, the radical leftwing hispanic
> organization known as L.U.L.A.C. made the claim that Taco Bell was
> running commericals that were offensive.  As a matter of fact, they said
> that the commericals which contained the spanish speaking, pint-sized,
> Chihuahua dog named Dinky were "hate crimes"!  

So you're offended, that they're offended. That offends me.

BTW - This is basically proof that you have no clue (just accept it-
everyone else has). It's interesting that you see LULAC as  "radical" and
"leftwing". So where the people that founded this country.

This reminds me of a bit of Texas history. Did you know that farmers in
south Texas, used to lie to migrant Mexican workers. They would tell them
that the workers would be paid well if they traveled to their plantation
and work for them. When the workers would get there, the farmers paid them
much less, or nothing at all. If the workers tried to leave, the
landowners would send the police or even the Texas Rangers ( from about
1910-60, the Texas Rangers only job was beating up minorities, BTW) to
arrest the workers.  They would quickly be fined and forced to work their
debt off to the farmer that originally deceived them. Can you say
"Slavery"? 

Lulac was founded to stop such injustices. Though, they were not very
successful, especially in Texas. Radical? There is a problem if
you see other's belief that they should have rights as Radical. But, then
again, there's also a problem if you think being "radical" is a bad thing.
Leftwing? Kinda? But I seen your point. Liberals are almost as
moronic as conservatives. 

FYI :
 Rightwing == {Communists, Religious Fanatics,...}
 Leftwing == { Human Rights Advocates, The founding fathers of
this country (although a bit hypocritical), socialists}

I don't think any of this will get through to you BTW. You're too far
"gone". I'm just posting this to make fun of you. See you have no
credibility. Since everyone makes fun of your stupidity - I just though I
would too; just to make myself feel better. One day, you'll figure it out
(hopefully). Of course, then you'll probably try an kill yourself. 

>    
>    Today, Dinky lives!  Taco Bell has refused to stop running
> commericals showing Dinky.  Also, Taco Bell will have a new series
> of commericals coming out soon which will contain other spanish speaking
> dogs.
> 
>    Thank you Taco Bell for not bowing to the demands of L.U.L.A.C.
>                       Yo Quiero Taco Bell! 
>                       Tu Madre L.U.L.A.C.!

I don't think LULAC has any muscle here anyway. Pepsico knows
that if every single Hispanic stopped eating at taco bell, they'd loose
absolutely no business. But, that doesn't excuse those STUPID comercials!

namaste,
Mark

--
********************************************************************
** Mark N. Hattarki            ** "The essence of the conception  ** 
** Voice : (512) 627-5692      ** of righteousness, therefore, is **
** University of Texas         ** to afford an outlet for sadism  **
** gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu      ** by cloaking cruelty as justice."**
** gandhiji@acm.org	       ** 	- Bertrand Russell	  **
********************************************************************
** http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/gandhiji/                       **
********************************************************************

In article
<Pine.LNX.3.96.980327142047.19689E-100000@bowler.cs.utexas.edu>, "Mark N.
Hattarki" <gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu> wrote:
>Lulac was founded to stop such injustices. Though, they were not very
>successful, especially in Texas. Radical? There is a problem if
>you see other's belief that they should have rights as Radical. But, then
>again, there's also a problem if you think being "radical" is a bad thing.
>Leftwing? Kinda? But I seen your point. Liberals are almost as
>moronic as conservatives. 

Actually LULAC has had a reputation for beign assimilationist pigs,
preferring to promote change thru "infiltration of the white establisment"
(my words) rather than in your face radical political movement.  The
National Chapter's refusal to support a boycott by some upstart Floridians
is just another instance where your radicals can point to and say "I told
you so".

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:22:31 -0600, Tracey <tracey12@swbell.net> wrote:

>Craig, that is such lunacy!  "Racist criteria"???  What a flaming
>liberal!  

You need to find a better retort that "flaming liberal," else I'm going to peg
you as a "twitching reactionary."

>It's so easy for you liberals to use the word "racist"!

In a sense, "grandfather clauses" are racist. They were used for close to a
century in the South to prevent blacks from exercising their right to vote. It
[generally] gives preference to white applicants over otherwise similiarly
qualified minorities.

>To a socialist, everyone must be on the same level. If they are not,
>then the power of government should be brought to bear.  

Everyone must be on the same level if those statements about "equality" in the
Constitution - that you hold so dear - is to mean anything whatsoever.

>Craig, AA is nothing more than racial discrimination because it places
>one or more races above another. 
> AA promotes the ungualified to a position they do not deserve.

I am no supporter of affirmative action as it is now known [i.e. prefferences],
but programs to help impoverished students lovked into the cycle of poverty are
good things.


 - Erik Smith
[       http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu      ]
[ Writings, thoughts, Dream Theater MIDI, ]
[ and that "E/" thing - all in one place. ]

Tracey <tracey12@swbell.net> wrote in article <351BD247.5C14@swbell.net>...

Tracey, since you claim to be a woman, do you really think you would have
gotten into college or the high paying legal-related career you claim to
have if there hadn't been a quota system for women?

On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Tracey wrote:

> Mexico is doing something similar to what Castro did a fear years back,
> but for different reasons.  Mexico is sending us its poor and allowing
> its criminals to escape prosecution by fleeing the country.  There is a

" Send me your poor, week..." I thought I remember reading that on some
statue in NY.

Besides, Mexico is not sending criminals to the US, no more than the US is
sending criminals to Mexico.

> sentiment among some latins that in the future, hispanics will control a
> number of southwestern states because of their influx and massive birth
> rate. 

Cool. Maybe they won't do ignorant and hatefull things like enslave
people and kill incent people in the 3rd world for fun and profit.

Again, you're seeing a negative, where you should be seeing a positive.

> What are the chances that the US could face problems not unlike those
> between Canada and Quebec?  Will these states be returned to the control
> of Mexico?

Well, those white people never returned control to England. 

Canada does have problems with Quebec. But the US has problems with
hispanics and blacks! If your not part of the solution...

  Could an evil, more powerful United Nations hear the cry of
> the dominate populace and force the US to give back these states to
> Mexico because of the outcome of a past politically incorrect war with
> that country, or allow these states become a new entity altogether?
> Keep your powder dry!

Or maybe the evil US will continue to oppress it's minoritiess. Hey,
those old white guys might re-enslave blacks. Oh shit!

Nah. I think they'll just continue to terrorize the 3rd word.

Anyway, UN is strictly in the buisness of giving the US permission to kill
people in countries that do the same things the US does. Yeah,
ocaisionally, you might hear someone bitch about how some US company is
destroying the enivronment in some third world country, or how the CIA is
giving psychopaths weaponry to make a country unstable (see
afganistan/world trade center bombing). But the UN just pays them lip
service and let's them think there're going to do something. 

namaste,
Mark
--
********************************************************************
** Mark N. Hattarki            ** "The essence of the conception  ** 
** Voice : (512) 627-5692      ** of righteousness, therefore, is **
** University of Texas         ** to afford an outlet for sadism  **
** gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu      ** by cloaking cruelty as justice."**
** gandhiji@acm.org	       ** 	- Bertrand Russell	  **
********************************************************************
** http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/gandhiji/                       **
********************************************************************

tracey12@swbell.net wrote:
>  AA promotes the ungualified to a position they do not deserve.
                   
Spelling aside, it's a common fallacy of the anti-AA crowd to
presume those admitted under affirmative action are _un_qualified
in an absolute sense.  Many, perhaps most, applicants denied
admission at schools like UT-Austin are qualified (in the sense
they'd be able to handle the curriculum) but are denied because
there's not enough space for _all_ capable applicants.

UT-Austin never used affirmative action to admit unqualified
applicants; _less_ qualified (though not by much), perhaps,
but not _un_qualified.  On the other hand, UT does admit
unqualified applicants (in the sense they can't handle the
curriculum) because they are athletes.

--/<eith

Message to all :

	Sorry, this is the LAST time I'll respond to this guy/girl/thing.
But, I might be able to clarify this for him/her/it.

David/tracy/whoever follow along. Write down the answer to the questions
below. And don't change them! 

On Mon, 23 Mar 1998, Tracey wrote:
> 
> Illegal aliens disgust me. What you said above is nothing more than the
> party line.  Though some come here for those reasons, doing so illegally
> is very wrong.  Why, when so many others come here legally, do so many
> wetbacks swim the river?  Our government says its becasue many of them
> will not be allowed in legally, so they invade our country.

So, anyone who comes here illegally is an "invader"? correct? This also
implies that "invading" is a bad thing, correct?

> Many come here very pregnant with the goal of having their baby here so
> they can qualify for welfare and free medical.
> If someone breaks into your home and steals your money, what are they?

Yes. What are they??? Write it down.

> If someone breaks into your country and steals your welfare, and other
> social services including seats in your tax supported schools, what are
> they?  Criminals.
> 

What if they took your land, your house, all your possessions, and your job
(means of living)? Criminals as well? Write both answers below.


 What if they invaded, stole all your possessions, and killed your family?
Worse eh? Write it..





Now, if you are an honest guy/girl/tracy/david/thing. Keep your answers.

The whites that settled this country, invaded. They did so without the
permission of the people that lived here (Native Americans). So, (by your
illogic at the very least) they invaded. Right? Since immigrants from
Mexico invading this country is wrong, it also follows that the whites
that came from Europe are also wrong in invading. Correct? 

You also claim that illegal immigrants are thieves because they get
welfare, correct? What does that make the founding fathers that stole
from the natives? What does that make them when they killed them off?

BTW - I'm only following your analogy, because I'm trying to demonstrate
something to you. No doubt, when I took your same convoluted reasoning and
aplied it to something you hold dear, you probably changed your tune a
bit, even though it fits. 

My guess is that you probably will try to come up with some
rationalization as to why your line of though applies to Mexicans but not
Europeans. Well, this is your problem. You associate yourself with
Americans (which in your mind, demonstrated explicitly by your newsgroup
postings, are whites). You will undoubtably refuse to accept the
Europeans as evil invaders (which undoubtably they were). Why, because you
consider yourself to be a part of them, and you don't think that you are
capable of doing something wrong or immoral! So, you must defend them.
This is your arrogance!

In the words of my step father "you think your shit don't stink!"

Humbleness is a virtue that most of us need improvement with (myself
included). See, liberals believe that drug should be legal and cigarettes
should be outlawed (your statements) which you believe to be a
contradiction. What you don't realize is, believing that drugs should be
illegal and cigarettes should be legal, would then also be a
contradiction. 

Your shit stinks as much as any liberal I've ever met!

namaste,
Mark

--
********************************************************************
** Mark N. Hattarki            ** "The essence of the conception  ** 
** Voice : (512) 627-5692      ** of righteousness, therefore, is **
** University of Texas         ** to afford an outlet for sadism  **
** gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu      ** by cloaking cruelty as justice."**
** gandhiji@acm.org	       ** 	- Bertrand Russell	  **
********************************************************************
** http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/gandhiji/                       **
********************************************************************

Former mayor of San Antonio, and former head of HUD, Henry Cisneros is in big
trouble.
Just yesterday, his mistress, Linda Jones was senetenced to 3.5 years in the big
house for lying to authorities about hush money paid to her by Cisneros and for
concealing evidence.
Outside the court, she stated that she does not view herslef as a criminal
because this was a victimless crime.  "My definition of a criminal is someone who
committed a crime against society, or against another person" she said.  "By no
means do I think of myself as a criminal, that I ever have been or that I ever
will be."

Cisneros faces charges in Washington that he concealed how much he had paid Mrs.
Jones.
His trial is set for Nov. 4.

Prosecutors claim that Cisneros paid Mrs. Jones $185,000 over a three year period
to silence her about their 2 1/2 year affair, which ended in 1989.  Cisneros was
then mayor of San Antonio and Mrs Jones was a political fund raiser who went by
her married name, Medlar.

Cisneros eventually reconciled with his wife, Mary Alice, tyhen he left the
Cabinet in 1996 and currently runs the Spanish language television network
Univison.

 After he stopped making payments following his first year as HUD secretary, she
filed a breach of contract lawsuit, eventually settling for $49,000.

Clinton can pick'em!  He appears he has a good deal in common with President
Bubba.
For more fun and information, check out the following sites:
http://www.pbs.org/chicano/index.html
http://www.pbs.org/chicano/bios/cisneros.html

Tracey Levin <tracey12@swbell.net> wrote:
> 
> Erik, that professor was not terminated,

He never said he was. He said that some legislators considered it.

> but he helped to point to problems caused
> byAffirmative Action

Affirmative Action has been one of the most progressive programs ever under-
taken by our government. Has it grown too big? Probably. Should it be totally
scraped? No way. By removing Affirmative Action, UT is back in a racist
criteria of addmission of its Law School. Perhaps the BIGGEST flaw in the
5th Circuit's ruling is that it let UT keep its "legacy" policy of giving
favoritism to the siblings or other close relatives of UT Law School grads.
Suppose you have two candidates of equal scoring through all addmissions
criteria and you can only choose one of the two. One is the grandson of
a Law School grad, the other is not. Who gets chosen? The grandson of the
Law School grad. The other candidate, if black, has been discriminated 
against since the other "white" candidate has received the benefit of past 
discrimination. When the candidates grandfather went to UT, it was segregated.
Blacks couldn't get into the Law School, yet this past discrimination lives 
through the use of legacies. Very few stop to consider such ramifications.
Affirmative Action is responsible for removing such extra benefits to whites
over persons of other races.

> and liberal university administrators.

Can you make it through a post without over generalizing or stereotyping 
some group wrongly?

> It seems as though you would not mind if the US became occupied by
mexicans from
> Mexico.

I doubt this. But its also very isolationalist to think that the US
cannot benefit from Mexicans or any other Latin-Americans that enter 
the US. Should they do it legally? ofcourse. Should we discourage
employers from hiring illegals? ofcourse. The problem lies in the fact
that many isolationalist, most of whom of conservatives, want to limit
the influx of legal immigration and legal-non-citizen-resident workers
from Mexico. They don't seem to put things together that many of these
persons from Latin America do the medial jobs most Americans wouldn't
dream of doing. Without them, you have to increase pay until you get some
American that is willing to do it, which costs businesses more money,
which drives up prices, two things most conservatives also hate. You
can't have it both ways those, folks. Its either one or the other.


Craig K. Gowens
 Hook'em Horns


University of Texas Athletic Web Page:
http://www.utexas.edu/athletics/

"I feel a little sleazy about [stalling the game to reach the 4:00 
curfew], but it helps to be prideless in that situation."
   --Augie Garrido, after Texas beat LSU in a curfew shortened game

"Quit calling it 'stalling' and call it 'time mangement' as it is
known in football and basketball, and glorify the coach who can use
it to his team's advantage."
   --"Ballgirl", fellow Texas Baseball nut and frequent poster on
     gobig12.com BBS, commenting on Garrido's "stalling" vs LSU

simon@snaefell.tamu.edu wrote:
> 
> 
> Some other country?  Name the courty.  Decribe in detail their method(s)
> of tranportation.  Much much money will it take to their trip and how
> much money do they have? (And while we're at it: What proportion their
> yearly income is that sum?)  And lastly, what are their prosepects when
> the get there.
> 
> No, the fact is that risking jail time *IS* often their best option. 
> The fact that you don't understand this fact, points specifically to why
> you misunderstand issues of imigration policy!
>  
> Can I get an Amen!

How about Hallelu^H^H^H^H^H^H^H...oops, its Lent.��;-)

Amen!





Craig K. Gowens
 Hook'em Horns


University of Texas Athletic Web Page:
http://www.utexas.edu/athletics/

"I feel a little sleazy about [stalling the game to reach the 4:00 
curfew], but it helps to be prideless in that situation."
   --Augie Garrido, after Texas beat LSU in a curfew shortened game

"Quit calling it 'stalling' and call it 'time mangement' as it is
known in football and basketball, and glorify the coach who can use
it to his team's advantage."
   --"Ballgirl", fellow Texas Baseball nut and frequent poster on
     gobig12.com BBS, commenting on Garrido's "stalling" vs LSU

clay wrote:

>
>
> This reminds me of an unrelated story.  Back in the old days (during the age of sail I
> believe, recalling from a highly enjoyable Naval history class I took 4 yrs ago), US
> sailors were treated poorly at a port village of some 3rd world nation.  The
> Admiral/Captain was incensed by this, so we shelled the village.  They got the wrong
> village!!  Nonetheless, US sailors were treated very well thereafter.  (not sure what the
> point of bringing that up is, just found it interesting).

That's funny as Hell!  Would that work with Mexico?  If we shelled them, do you think they
might try to stop their soon to be illegals from entering our country?  You bet they would!

> That's funny as Hell!  Would that work with Mexico?  If we shelled them, do you think
> theymight try to stop their soon to be illegals from entering our country?  You bet they
> would!

I don't find it funny at all.  And no, it wouldn't stop people from crossing the border, they
would do it moreso in an effort to escape the mass destruction you propose.  Of course, such
logic is beyond you.

--

Callie ----> Me

 Chacun devrait savoir l'amour d'une boisson givr�e.
 Jeder sollte die Liebe eines eisigen Getr�nkes kennen.
 Todos se deben saber el gusto de una bebida escarchada.

Simon D. Dembitzer wrote in message <351B1341.62AA@snaefell.tamu.edu>...
>Tracey Levin wrote:
>>
>> Sassoon wrote:
>>
>> >  I can not honestly say what even I would do if I had to
>> > watch my children go hungry because I had no work/income to provide for
>> > them. I can not honestly say HOW I would go about trying to get them/me
to a
>> > better place where they CAN prosper. Try to play the "transference"
game and
>> > put myself/yourself in their place
>>
>> Maybe you would be smart for the sake of your children and go to some
other
>> country legally rather than risk jail time and or other harm that might
befall
>> you if you illegally break in.
>
>
>Some other country?  Name the courty.  Decribe in detail their method(s)
>of tranportation.  Much much money will it take to their trip and how
>much money do they have? (And while we're at it: What proportion their
>yearly income is that sum?)  And lastly, what are their prosepects when
>the get there.
>
>No, the fact is that risking jail time *IS* often their best option.
>The fact that you don't understand this fact, points specifically to why
>you misunderstand issues of imigration policy!
>
>
>
>Can I get an Amen!
>
>
>
>Simon

Amen and seconded! Lisa

Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of the SWC) wrote:
> 
> Tracey Levin <tracey12@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > Erik, that professor was not terminated,
> 
> He never said he was. He said that some legislators considered it.
> 
> > but he helped to point to problems caused
> > byAffirmative Action
> 
> Affirmative Action has been one of the most progressive programs ever under-
> taken by our government. Has it grown too big? Probably. Should it be totally
> scraped? No way. By removing Affirmative Action, UT is back in a racist
> criteria of addmission of its Law School. Perhaps the BIGGEST flaw in the
> 5th Circuit's ruling is that it let UT keep its "legacy" policy of giving
> favoritism to the siblings or other close relatives of UT Law School grads.
> Suppose you have two candidates of equal scoring through all addmissions
> criteria and you can only choose one of the two. One is the grandson of
> a Law School grad, the other is not. Who gets chosen? The grandson of the
> Law School grad. The other candidate, if black, has been discriminated
> against since the other "white" candidate has received the benefit of past
> discrimination. When the candidates grandfather went to UT, it was segregated.
> Blacks couldn't get into the Law School, yet this past discrimination lives
> through the use of legacies. Very few stop to consider such ramifications.
> Affirmative Action is responsible for removing such extra benefits to whites
> over persons of other races.

As a UT Law graduate and an opponent of affirmative action, I think the
"legacy" issue is a good point. Wipe it out. One question: how many
admissions are affected by the legacy issue?

Yes, UT Law has had some problems (mainly publicity-related) in
attracting qualified minority applicants lately, but the overall effect
nationally of dropping race-based preferences in law school admissions
has been negligible, according to figures I've seen. There was a big
drop in the immediate year following Hopwood, then figures came back up.
I think it's a great idea to give preferential treatment based on
factors other than pure test scores: most particularly, economic
circumstances. But, in the extreme sense, to prefer an affluent black
applicant over a disadvantaged white applicant makes no sense to me. To
me, affirmative action proponents are essentially stating that two
wrongs make a right.
-- 
Mike Koenecke
to reply, change "nowhere" to "cyberramp"

No one here said anything about being Christian.... those were way different
times... we are not having a world war now are we???  if we are somebody
forward the memo to me... I was in the back jerking off again and missed all
the important news....

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_015F_01BD59DF.544C2F60
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dude... you are missing the point... sounds like you got HOOKED by a =
'horn'....


------=_NextPart_000_015F_01BD59DF.544C2F60
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3Dtext/html;charset=3Diso-8859-1 =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV>Dude... <FONT color=3D#ff0000><EM>you</EM></FONT> are missing the =
point...=20
sounds like you got HOOKED by a 'horn'....</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_015F_01BD59DF.544C2F60--

they are only unborn until the end of pregnancy... if that term ends on US
soil... then it is an American baby... albeit Mexican-American... it gets to
wear tan chinos, a white t-shirt, and some Locs (sunglasses) with its bad
attitude and waste millions of our tax $'s.....

... wrong again maestro... the note you are so diligently trying to sing is:
white trash....

--

>  If we knew what we were doing it would not be called a newsgroup, would
it?

he would probably say:  clay... isn't that like dirt, or something????

is lesbian in part of that description... you sound like she really hit a
nerve... maybe made the chicken a little red?.... I've lived in TX all my
life... have many Hispanic friends and no, none of them are
wetbacks....however, I have worked in certain laborious situations where I
have been employed right next to wetbacks... also, in military school two of
my roommates were (and still are) Mexican... now does that statement make me
a racist?? no... I think not....

when was the last time someone saw an ATM in Mexico that had an English
option on the menu right up front...

(and I don't mean in one of those tourist shit-holes... subsidized by tacky
little Americans w/ a $5 bill.... and an attitude???)

Ooh La La Sassoon!!! Bravo, Bravo... finally we have a few people making
sense way late in the game... I applaud you two for a little clarity in this
incessant rant that started with a Chihuahua wanting what has to be the
cheapest, nastiest 'crap-in-wrapper' you can get away with, w/out Marvin
Zindler blasting you name on Eyewitness News....

Erik- stop drooling and don't cross unless you look both ways first... am I
talking about your day or your posting habits... I forget... well anyway,,,
most businesses that have at least a half-ass CPA can find all kinds of
loopholes around paying taxes for illegals that get paid cash under the
table... why do you think CPA's are so popular???... they know all the right
tax deductions to claim....

...and the LEGALS do pay taxes... how is it you seem to miss this point
consistently... do we need a review...???

screw income taxes!!!! who pays those silly things anyway.... we need to tax
consumer goods... like it or not Mexicans, Americans, Africans, Swedes, and
yes, those damned French... all have to buy stuff when they are here... get
from them when they get here, while they're here, and before they leave...

send back all the money you want to wherever your side of the world is...
buy any consumable and the taxes get paid... rely on human intervention,
I.e. CPA's and the average 1040ez Joe out there... what taxes... you can
hold the IRS off for at least a good ten years....

Yes, we can see how advanced everything is south of the US border.  And, if Texas was still under the control of Mexicans, it would be just as backwater as Mexico is today.
I'll quote my good friend who says, "Mexicans can have Texas back right after they give Mexico back to Spain!"  Otherwise, to Hell with'em.


Dennis or Barbara Taylor wrote:

> >
> You forgot to include Spainards, Chinese, Japanese, Africans, there were
> others besides whites that settled here. This statement of your's leads
> me to believe that you are attacking whites...Is this true, or did you
> subconciensly post this?
> > So, (by your illogic at the very least) they invaded. Right? Since immigrants from
> > Mexico invading this country is wrong, it also follows that the whites
> > that came from Europe are also wrong in invading. Correct?
> Yes, they were wrong to invade the Native Americans and take their land
> from them. The Europeans/Settlers were smarter and stronger than the
> Natives, therefore they took everything away from them! Your post leads
> me to believe you think that the Mexicans are trying to conquer America
> and trying to take their land back(INSERT THREAD HERE) What you have to
> remember is, if it weren't for those Europeans, this country, no better
> yet, this Earth would not be the place that is today. I bet you probably
> wouldn't even have that computer to post these thoughtless posts on.
> Right? (INSERT THREAD HERE) Ok, think of it like this: Border patrol is
> simply America defending it's territory. How's that?
> > Why, because you consider yourself to be a part of them, and you don't think that you > are capable of doing something wrong or immoral! So, you must defend them. This is > your arrogance!
> Hey buddy, where are you living at? I guess YOU don't feel too bad about
> it, you're still in the USA. Right?
>

Jamais & Mike wrote:

> they are only unborn until the end of pregnancy... if that term ends on US
> soil... then it is an American baby... albeit Mexican-American... it gets to
> wear tan chinos, a white t-shirt, and some Locs (sunglasses) with its bad
> attitude and waste millions of our tax $'s.....

  And complain about the evil norte americanos!

Mark N. Hattarki (gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:

					(edit)

: The whites that settled this country, invaded. They did so without the
: permission of the people that lived here (Native Americans). So, (by your
: illogic at the very least) they invaded. Right? Since immigrants from
: Mexico invading this country is wrong, it also follows that the whites
: that came from Europe are also wrong in invading. Correct? 

	So according to your logic, because Americans from Europe
	invaded this land, we should allow Mexicans to invade?

: You also claim that illegal immigrants are thieves because they get
: welfare, correct? What does that make the founding fathers that stole
: from the natives? What does that make them when they killed them off?

	Conquerors.  The European culture overcame the native culture
	by means of numbers, tenacity, and technology.  And your point
	is what?

: BTW - I'm only following your analogy, because I'm trying to demonstrate
: something to you. No doubt, when I took your same convoluted reasoning and
: aplied it to something you hold dear, you probably changed your tune a
: bit, even though it fits. 

	If by suggesting that Europeans were wrong to conquer North
	America you intend to justify the Mexican invasion, you
	probably need to think further.

: My guess is that you probably will try to come up with some
: rationalization as to why your line of though applies to Mexicans but not
: Europeans. Well, this is your problem. You associate yourself with
: Americans (which in your mind, demonstrated explicitly by your newsgroup
: postings, are whites). You will undoubtably refuse to accept the
: Europeans as evil invaders (which undoubtably they were). Why, because you
: consider yourself to be a part of them, and you don't think that you are
: capable of doing something wrong or immoral! So, you must defend them.
: This is your arrogance!

	American Indians were incapable of resisting the Europeans.
	We are capable of resisting the invasion of Mexicans.  Or
	should we not resist the Mexicans because we successfully
	displaced the American Indians?  You seem to want to determine
	immigration policy according to guilt about something that has
	nothing to do with our country today or with Mexicans.  Should
	the Italians allow immigration from North Africa because the
	Romans saked Carthage?

Brad wrote:
> 
> >No, they are a fast food chain of so-called mexican food (which of
> >course it not).
> 
> true, but i still, find those burritos pretty damn good
> 
> -brad
Take it from me, Brad: You wouldn't if you've ever worked at one. 
Making those beans was disgusting to me.

beth
"Snap out of it!" - Cher, Moonstruck

On Sat, 28 Mar 1998 20:05:00 -0600, Elizabeth Keith <bethk@flash.net>
wrote:

>Brad wrote:
>> 
>> >No, they are a fast food chain of so-called mexican food (which of
>> >course it not).
>> 
>> true, but i still, find those burritos pretty damn good
>> 
>> -brad
>Take it from me, Brad: You wouldn't if you've ever worked at one. 
>Making those beans was disgusting to me.
>
>beth
>"Snap out of it!" - Cher, Moonstruck

yeah, i've heard some horror stories from various people that worked
there, but the majority of them still eat there...plus i haven't died,
so that's gotta be something positive :)

-brad

On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:18:23 -0600,
NOSPAMckgowens@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL (Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of
the SWC)) wrote:

>Please explain when asians (WWII intermine camps aside) were treated
>like blacks and hispanics have been. Explain when there was systematic,
>rampant discrimination against them. See the difference.

Look at the West coast during the 1800s and early 1900s. Around the time of the
go0ld rush, some sweeping statute passed that effectively prohibited an asian
from owning land [seemingly because the Chinese were not only finding a good
many successful prospects, buyt they were good at excavating the gold - needless
to say, this irritated some white miners]. I don't know how long that it was on
the books, but Asians have faced incredible systematic discrmination on the west
coast during the past century. They certainly didn't have it easy during the
years surounding WWII - many of those not interned were forced to evacuate by
bigoted local citizenry [even after the war was over].


 - Erik Smith
[       http://helix.dorm.utexas.edu      ]
[ Writings, thoughts, Dream Theater MIDI, ]
[ and that "E/" thing - all in one place. ]

In article <351ed763.279666075@newshost.cc.utexas.edu>, dr.feinstein@DELETETHIS.mail.utexas.edu (Erik) says:
>
>On Fri, 27 Mar 1998 21:18:23 -0600,
>NOSPAMckgowens@uts.cc.utexas.edu.REMOVEFORMAIL (Craig K. Gowens (Commissioner of
>the SWC)) wrote:
>
>>Please explain when asians (WWII intermine camps aside) were treated
>>like blacks and hispanics have been. Explain when there was systematic,
>>rampant discrimination against them. See the difference.
>
>Look at the West coast during the 1800s and early 1900s. Around the time of the
>go0ld rush, some sweeping statute passed that effectively prohibited an asian
>from owning land [seemingly because the Chinese were not only finding a good
>many successful prospects, buyt they were good at excavating the gold - needless
>to say, this irritated some white miners]. I don't know how long that it was on
>the books, but Asians have faced incredible systematic discrmination on the west
>coast during the past century. They certainly didn't have it easy during the
>years surounding WWII - many of those not interned were forced to evacuate by
>bigoted local citizenry [even after the war was over].
>
>
> - Erik Smith
**************************************************************************
Here�s what encyclopedia Britanica has to say about it:

Coolie:

(from Hindi Kuli, an aboriginal tribal name, or from Tamil kuli, 
"wages"), in usually pejorative European usage, an unskilled labourer 
or porter usually in or from the Far East hired for low or subsistence 
wages. 

The so-called coolie trade began in the late 1840s as a response 
to the labour shortage brought on by the worldwide movement to 
abolish slavery. The majority of these contract labourers were 
shipped from China, especially from the southern ports of Amoy and 
Macao, to developing European colonial areas, such as Hawaii, 
Ceylon, Malaya, and the Caribbean. (see also Index: slave trade) 

Most coolies became so by voluntary negotiation, though 
kidnapping, decoy, and fraud were occasionally involved. Western 
merchants conducted the trade. Conditions in the depots (barracoons), 
where the labourers were stored awaiting shipment, and on the 
vessels in which they sailed were cramped and inhumane, resulting 
in much sickness, misery, and death. Neither the Western governments 
nor the Chinese government made more than a haphazard attempt 
to correct the abuses; the Chinese government had issued a ban on 
all emigration, but officials did nothing to enforce it. 

By the late 19th century, free immigration began to supersede the 
coolie trade. The Chinese, Japanese, and Hindustani workers who 
came to Australia and California after the discovery of gold in these 
areas around 1850 were commonly regarded as coolies, but they 
were technically free immigrants, not contract labourers. 

Terry at Lake Bastrop
***********************************************************************

Erik (dr.feinstein@DELETETHIS.mail.utexas.edu) wrote:
: On Wed, 25 Mar 1998 18:31:52 -0600, Tracey Levin <tracey12@swbell.net> wrote:

: >Let them go to Brazil to find work unless they come here legally.We have NO
: >obligation to help central americans "find work".

: The opportunity exists here. Alter public assistance laws to prohibit sponging
: and permit them to come and contribute their productivity.

	Masses of unskilled and uneducated foreign nationals not only have
	little if productivity to contribute, they flood the labor pool
	and drive down wages so that Americans with few skills and little
	education are edged out of jobs.  You seem to have no comprehension
	of the numbers of illegal aliens in this country.  They are here
	by the millions, and hundreds of thousands arrive each year.

Mark N. Hattarki (gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: > Just a couple of weeks ago, the radical leftwing hispanic
: > organization known as L.U.L.A.C. made the claim that Taco Bell was
: > running commericals that were offensive.  As a matter of fact, they said
: > that the commericals which contained the spanish speaking, pint-sized,
: > Chihuahua dog named Dinky were "hate crimes"!  

: So you're offended, that they're offended. That offends me.

: BTW - This is basically proof that you have no clue (just accept it-
: everyone else has). It's interesting that you see LULAC as  "radical" and
: "leftwing". So where the people that founded this country.

	And that would be the only quality shared by the founders of
	this country and the self-serving demagogues of LULAC.

: This reminds me of a bit of Texas history. Did you know that farmers in
: south Texas, used to lie to migrant Mexican workers. They would tell them
: that the workers would be paid well if they traveled to their plantation
: and work for them. When the workers would get there, the farmers paid them
: much less, or nothing at all. If the workers tried to leave, the
: landowners would send the police or even the Texas Rangers ( from about
: 1910-60, the Texas Rangers only job was beating up minorities, BTW) to
: arrest the workers.  They would quickly be fined and forced to work their
: debt off to the farmer that originally deceived them. Can you say
: "Slavery"? 

	You don't know much about the Texas Rangers either, do you.
	Walter Prescott Webb wrote a fairly comprehensive history
	of the Rangers.  You might read it, or anything else about
	the Rangers, as evidently you never have.

Mark N. Hattarki (gandhiji@cs.utexas.edu) wrote:
: On Sun, 22 Mar 1998, Tracey wrote:

: > Mexico is doing something similar to what Castro did a fear years back,
: > but for different reasons.  Mexico is sending us its poor and allowing
: > its criminals to escape prosecution by fleeing the country.  There is a

: " Send me your poor, week..." I thought I remember reading that on some
: statue in NY.

	Right.  It's on the Statue of Liberty.  It's not the Statue of
	Immigration.  And the words were attached about 25 years after
	the statue was erected.  Your point?

: Besides, Mexico is not sending criminals to the US, no more than the US is
: sending criminals to Mexico.

	I see.  You're conducting interviews at the border as people
	are jumping over the fence and swimming across the river?

: > sentiment among some latins that in the future, hispanics will control a
: > number of southwestern states because of their influx and massive birth
: > rate. 

: Cool. Maybe they won't do ignorant and hatefull things like enslave
: people and kill incent people in the 3rd world for fun and profit.

	You mean the way the Mexicans do to one another?

: Again, you're seeing a negative, where you should be seeing a positive.

	Sure.  There are lots of positives about masses of foreign
	nationals arriving in this country illegally and attaching
	themselves to the trough paid for by American taxpayers.

: > What are the chances that the US could face problems not unlike those
: > between Canada and Quebec?  Will these states be returned to the control
: > of Mexico?

: Well, those white people never returned control to England. 

	You really have a tight grip on the dynamics of history and
	of current politics, economics, and culture, don't you.

: Canada does have problems with Quebec. But the US has problems with
: hispanics and blacks! If your not part of the solution...

	Congratulations.  You're an honorary '60s radical.

:   Could an evil, more powerful United Nations hear the cry of
: > the dominate populace and force the US to give back these states to
: > Mexico because of the outcome of a past politically incorrect war with
: > that country, or allow these states become a new entity altogether?
: > Keep your powder dry!

: Or maybe the evil US will continue to oppress it's minoritiess. Hey,
: those old white guys might re-enslave blacks. Oh shit!

	Sure.  Americans have really oppressed minorities in the past
	40 years.  Old white guys wrote and passed every piece of civil
	rights legislation that ended Jim Crow and other discrimination.
	Then they invented Affirmative Action and the welfare state.
	You obviously have no idea that more than a trillion dollars
	have been spent on social and welfare programs to assist
	minorities in the past 35 years or so.