Replies

Great post... But it looks to me like we see these statements from completely different perspectives....

Here's how I read the post.

1. 50 or 60 years ago we fought WW2 and didn't have that much "known" domestic dissent (none that the MSM published anyway).

2. There was no PC police then and if the government saw it fit to intern the Japanese, not many argued or protested. So with respect to the fact we are not all-for-one one-for-all the way we were in WW2 I would have to agree with him. We would never get away with internment camps today.

3. Now the meat of his post that got everyone up in arms. The civil rights movement did the following: CORE, SNC, Black Panthers, NOW, et al. intentionally set out to change our culture. I don't think you can argue that point. In my opinion, for the most part they accomplished their goal. There may be some in our society that may claim not enough, but I doubt they think it's the same as PRE 60s.

To me that was the gist of his statement. The stated goal of the civil rights movement was to change our culture.

3B. With respect to the Christian heritage aspect if his statement, I read it to be that some of the same "civil rights" groups are currently doing their best to remove every icon of Christianity from the public square. I doubt you could argue that the ACLU is not a "civil rights" group, and I doubt you can argue that their stated goals is not to remove all vestiges of our Christian heritage. To include religious symbols, prayers, and references to the Christian God from official American discourse.

4. I saw no reference to the government in his post. He stated that immigration today is working the same way as the civil rights movement did as stated above. I can't say that I can find fault in that argument either. The stated goal (proven through past performance) of our enemies is to infiltrate the USA via the open borders and liberal issuance of visas to establish sleeper cells in our country to strike when given "the signal". The stated goals of the Islamists is to change or destroy our culture which they abhor.

5. I read his post to say that we must recognize that these sleeper cells are here and they are working to change our culture and destroy our Christian heritage.

In conclusion, the civil right movement intentionally changed our culture and some components of the civil rights movement are threatening the icons of America's Christian heritage. Some people consider all of these to be positive changes, some in our society do not.

The stated goal of illegally immigrated terrorists is to change or destroy the culture our country and intentionally remove all vestiges of Christianity in America. Some people consider all of these to be positive changes, some in our society do not.

In my opinion, the illegal immigrants who want to change or destroy our culture through terrorism and kill us simply because we are not Islamists or because we are Christians are our enemy and should be destroyed. I saw not one single racist remark in his post that was any different than the racists anti-Islam statements made in the posts I sent you earlier. I read his remarks to say the our country's culture is about to be changed and our Christian heritage attacked in ways as dramatic as those made by the civil rights movement. You may not agree, and while one 'cause' may appear more noble to you, I can certainly see a correlation.

You must understand that part of my frame of reference is reading his past posts that purport that the white founding fathers of this country meant for this country to be for their descendants and only their descendants. It might alleviate things if he occasionally took the time and consideration to actually answer the challenges and questions we've posed of him rather than leaving people like you to do so and running off back into the Natalee Holloway thread which he only entered, for what it's worth, a few weeks ago to try and assert that it was the 2 black guards and not "the Dutch boy" who could've done it. He's changed his tune on that.......I think.
I frankly don't think that he shares the same subtleties and distinctions that you've read into his posts and tried to communicate to me (not that I fully agree with yours either, but at least they are not as one dimensional as his) i.e., I don't think the two of you are on the same page.