How Much Is Not Enough?

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

So I am left with the question, how much ideological agreement must one have to post here? And is there real freedom to post dissent without running the risk of being called a "la razaist? Or should people that agree with the general idea of border security, but disagree on specific details just shut up and go away. Further thinning the already thinned ranks of this movement, and making it look even more like the gathering of far right kooks that the leftist media makes it out to be? I hate using the word, because the Left has ruined it, but is there room for tolerance within this group, and this movement? Again, I am not speaking of the things perpetrated by the Gilchrests, Nightingales, and Gheens of this movement, but on issues where there can be civil disagreement.

What say you?

I think we're all very tolerant here, else there'd be numerous blank spots on this forum. No one has to be ideologically in sync to post. Since we are a non-profit, we can't really take sides on candidates or spend too much of our time on influencing legislation, so we certainly can't marginalize our associates and supporters over their support or opposition of any legislation. That doesn't mean that you won't be questioned by other posters/associates/supporters about your personal views or motives, However that questioning isn't coming from an official capacity. I've seen that you are capable of your own defense generally, so I don't usually rush to your aide. Really, we are all quite suspicious of each other in some form, mainly because we don't interract face to face where stronger bonds usually get built. We're all kinda like siblings, so we're going to fight amongst ourselves from time to time. Try not to show your weaknesses though. Your siblings aim for those first

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

... We're all kinda like siblings, so we're going to fight amongst ourselves from time to time. Try not to show your weaknesses though. Your siblings aim for those first

I really take exception to that. I am nothing like a sibling to anyone posting here. I don't know or care anything about anyone posting here besides their opinion. And that would be true even if I knew everyone personally face to face. This is typically an anonymous forum. If some people here know each other face to face, I would say it actually prevents them from expressing themselves. Forums like this are best served in allowing people to express themselves free of the incumberance of face to face obligations.

But this also represents an organization with activities on the ground somewhere and so I suppose it is inevitable that people feel those obligations too. But as a poster, I would encourage people to express themselves as openly and as honestly as they can. The problem, I think, is when people take advantage of the anonymity to be deceptive or calculating in ways they'd like to be in person if they could. Or, when they can. Some people make the mistake of applying rhetorical devices in arguments that work in person, but don't work in written correspondence. Constantly stepping out of an argument to analyze the argument, or getting personal. This always works in person where the victim has no choice but to walk away to shut the fool up.

You can't constantly interrupt somebody posting at a forum like this or physically intimidate them. And if somebody is aggravating you, just ignore them.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Twoller

I really take exception to that. I am nothing like... .

See Pocho? Now I have something to aim for when he and I are at odds

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

See Pocho? Now I have something to aim for when he and I are at odds

If you think it is cute to piss me off, then quit whining about it when you do.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Twoller

If you think it is cute to piss me off, then quit whining about it when you do.

Whining is part of the whole sibling thing. See? You are becoming one of us, more and more each day.

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I have voiced opposition and concerns to it, I have been labeled a la razaist. So my question to you members and administration, is there now going to be an ideological "litmus" test? Do members have to agree 100% with every piece of law, in order to avoid being termed a "la razaist" by other members of this board?

Further, my opposition to this bill, is based on my concerns over its potential abuse by law enforcement on American citizens and legal residents/immigrants in this country. It seems that there is a propensity to regard all Latinos as "the usual suspects," and this is deeply troubling to me. I continually get the feeling that there are people on this board who regard people like me as second class citizens, not worthy of the same respect and equal treatment. It should be pointed out that these same people have posted openly their admiration for the actions of white nationalists and nazis in this country!

Dude, I read what you had to say about the Arizona legislation on Facebook, left a reply, and made it known that I largely disagree with you. I'm also aware that the substance of your concerns are Constitutional and privacy abuses by law enforcement. That doesn't make you a La Raza sympathizer. That makes you a member of a minority in this country that actually thinks about and values Constitutional protections.

Here's your problem. People say crap here and you care.

Why? You know from experience (here and on the old SOS board) that people whom you will rarely or never see invariably talk the most extremist, inflammatory garbage. The white nationalism sympathizing crap and loon bag conspiracies (i.e. Obama the Illegal Alien) are commonly composed on the keyboards of folks we won't see on the tarmac at a Home Depot day labor site gig, a Santa Clarita City Council Meeting, or a protest in the Antelope Valley.

Those who want to talk the most spend the most time here on the board b/c the extent of their involvement doesn't usually extend past posts and bitching about illegals. D, why on Earth do you care?

[wetibbe]

After a few years you will learn that it doesn't matter at all what the subject is- politics - religion - guns - reloading - rifles.

Eventually people will be people. contentious, cantankerous, difficult, aggressive, bellicose.

Someone will write something and someone else will take offense and start an argument. Then it degenerates into name calling and insults eventually resulting, many times, in someone getting banned.

[Rim05]

I am for the law and wish CA had the same law.
I think everyone knows how much I am against illegal immigration but I also think everyone knows how much I am against all racial bias.

That does not mean we do not need strict immigration enforcement, because we do. At the rate we are going the Invaders will next think they are entitled to just move into our homes, they just about have everything else.
BTW, when I say Invaders I DO MEAN ILLEGALS.

[PochoPatriot]

Originally Posted by DerailAmnesty.com

Dude, I read what you had to say about the Arizona legislation on Facebook, left a reply, and made it known that I largely disagree with you. I'm also aware that the substance of your concerns are Constitutional and privacy abuses by law enforcement. That doesn't make you a La Raza sympathizer. That makes you a member of a minority in this country that actually thinks about and values Constitutional protections.

Good point! Sadly, I forgot that the easiest route for the small-minded and cowardly is to call a person a name. That is the tactic of our opposition. It's pathetic that this tactic is being employed by members of this board, and others in the past.