The new 'Racism'?

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
Oh but they are committing "proper crimes" as well:

According to a 2003 Government Accountability Office (GAO) survey, the average criminal alien was arrested for 13 prior offenses, 12 percent of which were cases of murder, robbery, assault and sexually related crimes; only 21 percent were immigration offenses, the rest being felonies.

Or d ...[text shortened]... ou not think that murder, robbery, assault and sexually related crimes are not violent enough?

this is just nonsense, you are saying that this person commited crimes because it was an immigrant!?!
americans commit crimes as well as immigrants, you can't say that only immigrants do this and that...

Originally posted by generalissimo
this is just nonsense, you are saying that this person commited crimes because it was an immigrant!?!
americans commit crimes as well as immigrants, you can't say that only immigrants do this and that...

According to the statistics, of all prisoners in federal prisons, 27 percent are criminal aliens. For such a statistically small portion of the population (say 20 million out of a total population of some 300 million), illegal aliens are cutting a high profile in the penal system.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You think this is a joke, but I assure you, it is not. Last May, an illegal alien who sped through a stop light caused a collision that totaled both our cars. He had no insurance or verifiable employment and the police just took his car to the impound lot and sent him on his way. In the meantime I was out:

•$1,000 for the deductible on my ins ...[text shortened]... s because I drive a new car. In effect, I'm subsidizing the uninsured illegal aliens in Texas!

No you're not, you're subsidising the shareholders of GEICO.

If you complain about illegal iimigrants costing the American taxpayer money, then why doesn't America bring home the 150,000 or so illegal immigrants it sent over to Iraq and save itself 3 trillion dollars?

Originally posted by The Snapper
No you're not, you're subsidising the shareholders of GEICO.

If you complain about illegal iimigrants costing the American taxpayer money, then why doesn't America bring home the 150,000 or so illegal immigrants it sent over to Iraq and save itself 3 trillion dollars?

Your comparison is too idiotic to respond to. Glad to see you buy into that tripe about 3 trillion dollars.... it fits you

Originally posted by SMSBear716
Your comparison is too idiotic to respond to. Glad to see you buy into that tripe about 3 trillion dollars.... it fits you

Idiotic? Let me clarify.
The point I was trying to make is, how can any American complain about public funds being spent on illegal immigrants (or healthcare, welfare, education, etc.) when they are losing trillions an an unwinnable, illegal war?
Those who support the war argue that it is for the good of the Iraqi people. Then, why do they prefer to see their tax dollar being spent helping citizens of a nation thousands of miles away rather than helping less fortunate Americans or even your close neighbours south of the border? Strange.
If the war is supposed to be about protecting American interests, then why can't individuals protect their interests by attempting to make more of their lives by working in America?
I would also point out that it seems a bit rich that any American can complain about illegal immigrants trying to get a better life for themselves whilst at the same time condoning the unjust invasion of a sovereign nation. A bit hypocritical I think.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
I'm not surprised you believe in the concept of Karma, however, I'll remind you that if you drive a car and are properly insured, you too are subsidizing all the illegal aliens who are causing so much mayhem on our streets. Who's laughing now, monkey boy?

I fail to see how. The short answer is your insurance company screwed you (assuming your story is true); you paid your premiums to protect against such an eventuality and when it happened, you didn't get what you paid for. As a fervent admirer of free market capitalism and a vocal opponent of virtually any type of regulation of corporations, how does that feel? Obviously you don't like it much but rather than direct your anger at the people really responsible for your loss i.e. the GEICO insurance company, you have turned to scapegoating. That is a typically irrational response and one that the powers that be are very happy for you to have.

I didn't laugh, but I admit to smiling whenever someone's political philosophy comes back to bite them on the ass.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
You're sick. You don't even know what real racisim or bigotry is.

Oh I think I do, DSR. And so do the Forum Moderators who have had to take down your posts on a regular basis on account of the racist and bigotted nature of what you had to say.

Originally posted by der schwarze Ritter
12 percent of which were cases of murder, robbery, assault and sexually related crimes; only 21 percent were immigration offenses, the rest being felonies.

All right, what percentage of the more than two million US citizens incarcerated at present committed serious offences as opposed to felonies? Impossible to form anything remotely like a clear picture of the situation without balanced statistics.

It's odd that for you 'illegal alien' automatically means 'Mexican'.

Sorry about your car. Had the other car been driven by, say, a car-jacker on the run from the police, would you have been covered? If not -- are all insurance companies as bad as GEICO?

Originally posted by Nemesio
To suggest that certain groups of people engage in such activity because of their race is in fact
the definition of racism. To say that blacks commit more crime is a true statement. To say that
they commit more crime because they're black is a lie.

When you simply say that they commit more crime without explaining the underlying forces ...[text shortened]... e can find the most obscure and infrequent
of occurrences to justify their stance.

Nemesio

What if the following three statistics could be proved? :-

1) A group of people have on average more testosterone than
another group

2) Higher levels of testosterone have been shown to lead to a
greater capacity for violence

3) A greater capacity for violence can influence the likelihood of
an individual to commit a violent crime.

Could it then be said that a particular group has more likelihood
of committing a violent crime?

Originally posted by Thequ1ck
What if the following three statistics could be proved? :-

1) A group of people have on average more testosterone than
another group

2) Higher levels of testosterone have been shown to lead to a
greater capacity for violence

3) A greater capacity for violence can influence the likelihood of
an individual to commit a violent crime.

Could it then be said that a particular group has more likelihood
of committing a violent crime?

yes it could be said. but the point is why they are more likely to do so. and dsr's statement that it is because of race is what is being questioned here.

Originally posted by mbakunin
yes it could be said. but the point is why they are more likely to do so. and dsr's statement that it is because of race is what is being questioned here.

Agreed. It is not the characteristics of a group that define behaviour
but the environment that these characteristics develop in.

Originally posted by mbakunin
yes it could be said. but the point is why they are more likely to do so. and dsr's statement that it is because of race is what is being questioned here.

I would say that the underlying cause of groups being more likely to
behave in a particular way is the inwillingness of society to recognise and
make allowances for 'differences' for fear of 'true' equality.
I believe they call it political correctness

Originally posted by FMF
Oh I think I do, DSR. And so do the Forum Moderators who have had to take down your posts on a regular basis on account of the racist and bigotted nature of what you had to say.

If they have been, that's because left-wing indoctrinated speech code promoters like you are afraid of them and got your feelings hurt every time you read something that didn't comport with your effete view of the world. Still, I take exception about the lies you are spreading about me. To my knowledge, I've had only a few posts taken down in almost three years of regularly contributing content to the RHP forums.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I fail to see how. The short answer is your insurance company screwed you (assuming your story is true); you paid your premiums to protect against such an eventuality and when it happened, you didn't get what you paid for. As a fervent admirer of free market capitalism and a vocal opponent of virtually any type of regulation of corporations, how does tha ...[text shortened]... admit to smiling whenever someone's political philosophy comes back to bite them on the ass.

The car insurance market in America is anything but a free market. First, you can't buy insurance from anyone other than an insurer in the state in which you reside. Therefore, there is a distinct lack of competition and this causes great disparities in the cost of policies across the country. Secondly, the insurers tell the legislatures that they want laws demanding that everyone be insured. Sounds great, huh? Probably about 1/4 of all drivers in Texas are driving around uninsured right now. And if you're an illegal alien, why should you be? At worst, they just impound your car and some Latino or liberal judge gives it right back to them. Most of the time, though, they just flee the scene of the accident or send the offending driver on his way, no ticket, no imprisonment, no trip to the INS. Nothing. In the meantime, the insurers just jack up the rates to cover the mounting costs of accidents involving uninsured motorists. You're probably asking: Why don't you just drive around uninsured? First off, it's a moral imperative to protect yourself and your family. Also, you should be able to remunerate the other party whatever harm you cause them. Lastly, I own too much property (houses, land, vehicles) to gamble it like that. The solution here is to get the uninsured off the road. If they impounded an uninsured person's car every time they were involved in an accident or traffic stop, the word would get out and people would quit driving around uninsured.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
All right, what percentage of the more than two million US citizens incarcerated at present committed serious offences as opposed to felonies? Impossible to form anything remotely like a clear picture of the situation without balanced statistics.

It's odd that for you 'illegal alien' automatically means 'Mexican'.

Sorry about your car. Had the ...[text shortened]... police, would you have been covered? If not -- are all insurance companies as bad as GEICO?

Maybe there's an addendum on the Rubenstein report. If not, the Dept. of Justice or FBI should have crime statistics broken on the people incarcerated.

If you lived in Texas, you'd understand why Texans associate "illegal aliens" with Mexico. However, I'm perfectly aware that illegal aliens come in all shapes and sizes: British, Canadian, Irish, Chinese, Russian, Brazilian, etc.

I suspect that all the insurance companies operate like GEICO. They paid me for my loss, but then jacked up my rates to cover their added expense. In the meantime, they did nothing to go after the illegal alien or turn it into a criminal matter.