home

Right Outraged That Reid States The Obvious: GOP Despises Latinos

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:12:51 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

This statement by Harry Reid has the Right up in arms:

“I don’t know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK,” Reid said, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal. “Do I need to say more?” he asked.

The Right was quick to trot out a Cuban-American to rebut:

I am the daughter of Cuban exiles who have seen first hand the failures of liberal and socialist policies in their native country. [. . .] My father looked at the platform of the republican party that endorsed small government, lower taxes, and strong defense, while the democrat party embraced Che Guevara and Fidel Castro, murderers and tyrants, as some sort of folk heroes, and endorsed larger and endorsed larger governments taking power away from the people.

(Emphasis supplied.) As the son of Cuban exiles, let me be the first to say that this is batsh*t insane. The "democrat" party embraced Che and Fidel? In what bizarro world does this person live in? Democrats have consistently denounced the tyranny in Cuba, to the point of imposing a counterproductive embargo on Cuba (JFK) and expanding it (Bill Clinton.) As I say, this is just batsh*t insanity.

Beyond that, the GOP, after a period of seeking to woo Latinos (see Rove, Karl) has now embraced xenophobic policies and statements that are, by any objective measure, attacks on Latinos. But in the strange world of the Wingnut, Che and Fidel are "democrat" stalwarts. The lunacy on the Right regarding Latinos continues.

Speaking for me only

< Obama Administration Using Coerced Confessions In Military Commission Cases | What Comes First: Political Polarization Or Presidential Leadership? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Right Outraged That Reid States The Obvious: GOP Despises Latinos | 146 comments (146 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    You said it Boss... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:35:35 AM EST
    If embracing means trying to assasinate and starve out, then yeah...Team D embraced Castro and Guevera.  A regular love fest.

    Wait, I get it...we didn't invade and occupy Cuba or fight a nuclear war with the former USSR...that equals "embrace".  

    And somebody tell the choir that SB1070 and amped-up immigration & border enforcement are the actions of "big government", know can we get together and denounce it?

    Reid took it one step further today (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by magster on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:39:04 AM EST
    saying he doesn't understand how anyone can be a Republican.

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:40:29 AM EST
    Good for Harry.

    Time to trot out Harry Truman's line "If you want to live like a Republican vote Democrat."

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#42)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:39:05 PM EST

    You mean like that $2 million wedding those Republican Clintons threw for their daughter.  Or perhaps Republican Senator Kerry's $7 million yacht.  Or perhaps that Republican Michille Antoinette's lavish five star vacation in Spain.

    Parent
    Are you sure they spent $2million.? (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:07:05 AM EST
    There were all sorts of stories flying around, most of which turned out to be untrue. Guest pictures of Barbara Streisand, Steven Spielberg, etc. etc. There were no gliterati, unless you call Ted Dansen and his wife and Madeline Albright stars. Mostly it was young friends of the families.  So that turned out to be untrue.  Given that the hype continued with the amount of money spent, I would be skeptical of those figures.  On the other hand, if thats what they spent, at least they earned it.

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#61)
    by TomStewart on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    If it's their money, they can spend it how they want. I would buy a Batmobile myself.

    Parent
    Yes, but some of it was our money (none / 0) (#76)
    by Untold Story on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:55:47 PM EST
    for Air Force One or Two, plus security detail, etc., to vacation in Spain, for Michelle and her friends - and, Kerry, just didn't pay the necessary tax required in Mass for docking his yacht - he did it in Rhode Island where there is no tax and now blames his wife - oh, dear!

    Clintons are free and clear - not in the same barrel at all.

    Parent

    The point remains (none / 0) (#93)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:47:24 PM EST

    These days it may be more accurate to advise to vote Republican so you can live like a Democrat.

    Parent
    What is accurate these days... (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:47:03 PM EST
    is "Vote Dem or Repub, no matter, and have a 1 in 31 chance of being in a cage or on parole/probation."

    Parent
    You do realize that Harry's son (none / 0) (#81)
    by me only on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:06:16 PM EST
    is running against a Republican Hispanic?

    Parent
    And Michael Steele . (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:38:05 PM EST
    and Clarence Thomas are black..

    So that's three leading the charge of the major sea change - starting now and culminating in the year 3000 - when traditional minorities embrace American conservatism.

    Parent

    Let the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:58:11 AM EST
    walk out further on that limb.  Truly clueless, they are.....

    They still argue that Republicans were always for Civil Rights and it was the Democrats who were racists (forgetting that those were different times).  But in spite of such arguments they only get 10% of the African American vote.

    So, let them argue how racially neutral their illegal immigration stance is....Let them try to repeal a portion of the Fourteenth Amendment, let them fire teachers with accents, let them talk about English only......And so when they are getting only 10% of the Latino vote in Texas, they can still say that they were never really bigots.....

    Harmonious (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:12:14 PM EST
    orchestrated cluelessness is the source of their greatest strength.

    Like African Army Ants.

    Parent

    Where was the Cuban ? (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:39:52 PM EST
    During Sotomayor's la Raza debacle ?

    Would someone ask the Cuban if they would take their family to Arizona for vacation should The Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act (aka Arizona SB 1070) make it through the courts.

    Or are the liberal plots as well ?

    Plus of course, when the Cuban's father joined the Republican Party is wasn't exactly the modern day Republican party and their subsidiary, the Tea Party.

    But it was still... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:21:27 PM EST
    the tough guy kill 'em all and let god sort it Republican party...some things haven't changed.

    Parent
    I'm kind of at the point where I not (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by Anne on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    only don't know why anyone would be a Republican, but I am coming to question why anyone would want to be a member of this "New" Democratic party; it isn't exactly in a position to be able to brag about a whole lot, in my opinion.  We're not as anti-immigrant, but then, we have that whole "Constitution?  What Constitution?  I don't need no steenkin' Constitution" thing being advanced by our (nominally) Democratic president, with the apparent full support of a fair number of Dems and plenty of Republicans (oh - it's bipartisan - now it all makes sense), so a discussion about who and/or what is worse may be only slightly less productive than one about how many sparkly ponies can dance on the head of a pin.

    Harry Reid may have stated the obvious, but so what?  What's Harry Reid done for me lately?

    A good article (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:23:44 PM EST
    Not to detract from anything here--because I clearly came to stay--but, there is an article that makes some very good points by Mike Lux @Openleft. An aspect of that article categorizes and lists the unusually long number of legislative/executive accomplishments in the 18 months of this administration. Lux suggests (and I agree) that most of these accomplishments have not only moved in the direction that we would like to see, but that other Democrats before had repeatedly tried and did not succeed in getting anywhere near. Lux goes on to say that--even with that progress--there are justifiable questions, concern among the progressive wing of the party; and, that the administration needs to strengthen (etc.) its efforts in that regard.

    The list, tho, is definitely impressive. I expect more, too, Anne. But, when any would-be Democrat says to me that he/she doesn't see a difference.... A bit mindboggling.

    Parent

    ahhhh . . . "The List" (5.00 / 2) (#104)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:05:11 PM EST
    surprised you're just now seeing it. They've been waving that flag for awhile. Although I'm not surprised by your response . . .

    Parent
    I can think of two (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:13:50 PM EST
    off the top of my head, no list necessary, that happened recently, vote split down party-lines.

    Funding for teachers and emergency responders.  Funding for unemployment benefits.

    Party doesn't matter.  Unless you're a teacher, or on unemployment, or Latino... etc...

    Parent

    Party doesn't matter (none / 0) (#111)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:23:05 PM EST
    when you aren't consistent . . . .

    Parent
    they have consistently (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:26:09 PM EST
    voted to extend these types of benefits.  The Republicans have consistently voted against them.

    Not sure what your point is.

    Parent

    Not so (none / 0) (#125)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:34:59 PM EST
    happened twice under Bush . . .

    Parent
    Funding for teachers and emergency responders (none / 0) (#114)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:27:32 PM EST
    CST, are you referring to the $26B bill that was just passed/signed this week?

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#115)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:32:36 PM EST
    I believe that falls under the category of "lately" - as in "what have you done for me lately?"

    "Specifically, it includes $10 billion for teacher positions and $16 billion to help cover state Medicaid payments."

    Lemme guess, not a fan?

    Parent

    Well except for the supposed poison pill (none / 0) (#118)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:54:44 PM EST
    that is included as part of the teacher/education part of the bill.

    Specifically, the bill stipulates that federal funds must supplement, not replace, state spending on education. Also, in each state, next year's spending on elementary and secondary education as a percentage of total state revenues must be equal to or greater than the previous year's level.

    Per the WSJ

    If it is as reported, then that stipulation is a major overreach by Congress.

    Parent

    Good Point (none / 0) (#121)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:05:22 PM EST
    Best for the GOP to campaign on it:

    Dem controlled congress overreaches in order to pay firefighters, schoolteachers, and police, who would be out of work without the gross overreach by the Democrats.

    The GOP voted against this measure because we believe that the bankers and wall street will trickle down enough so that the unemployed firefighters, schoolteachers and police, can find solid janitorial work. They just have to lower their standards.

    Parent

    Did you not read the clip or the article? (none / 0) (#127)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:52:38 PM EST
    Please explain your logic on how a 1 time "emergency" payment to the states has anything to do with forcing future state budget funding levels?

    It may be difficult, but try to stay focused on the point.

    Parent

    Just Trying To Be Helpful (none / 0) (#150)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 05:11:00 PM EST
    Apart from the GOP campaign strategy: We hate Latinos.

    We hate firemen, police and teachers too.

    That should really coalesce the GOP base.

    Parent

    Gays and Muslims Too (none / 0) (#151)
    by squeaky on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 05:15:02 PM EST
    And for good measure Blacks, because they won't vote GOP anyway. Racism and Bigotry, and xenophobia is sure to pick up more than a few GOP voters who would otherwise not vote.

    Parent
    Yes, the "list" (none / 0) (#110)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:20:46 PM EST
    I've always found these kinds of lists--factually verifiable statements of results--to be useful. Deeds are deeds; and, when they move in the direction that we desire, we say so. If we want another direction or we are not happy, that is something else, isn't it? If we want to deny that the actions exist, we can do that too, can't we. Yep, there is a certain objectivity to a list that answers any question beginning "What did you do?"

    Parent
    Very well said, Anne. (none / 0) (#60)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:12:24 PM EST


    Parent
    I second... (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    you gotta be nuts to align with either of the two...some may feel the need to hold their nose and pull the lever for one or the other, I disagree but understand...but to join the club?  Nuts, nuts, nuts.

    Parent
    To: sarcastic unnamed one (none / 0) (#96)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    Excuse me if I read something wrong here, but.... Somehow, when I take your immediate comment and others (such as one directly below which seems quite critical of the left), it just seems (that you know maybe like like possibly) a wee bit of wedge politics on a blog???

    Parent
    christinep, I'm not exactly sure what (none / 0) (#103)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:55:33 PM EST
    you are asking me.

    In the comment you seem to be replying to I agree with Anne that both parties are substantially lacking and debates about which party is less lame than the other is pretty much a waste of time.

    I'm not sure which of my comments you are referring to when you describe it as "quite critical of the left," can you give me the comment #?

    Parent

    Thank you for your response, sarcastic unnamed one (none / 0) (#106)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:12:45 PM EST
    My inference stemmed from your comments #6 (Democrats may have denounced...)together with Peter G's reply and #13 (strident leftys.)
    Also suggestive of a particular political bent in today's world: comments about immigration.

    Perhaps, I don't understand your comments about immigration. To help clarify: What kind of immigration reform would you propose or support? Do you support a pathway to legalization or do you come from the deportation only frame of mind?

    Parent

    Clarification (none / 0) (#112)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:23:55 PM EST
    Sarc is one of our long time right leaning commenters, in case you were confused.

    Parent
    And they are all out on this thread today (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:48:32 PM EST
    Let me see if I can find some garlic.....

    Parent
    "our long time...." (none / 0) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:20:53 PM EST
    I didn't realize you owned part of the blog.

    Wow. How much did you pay?

    Parent

    Fair enough re: comment # 6, (none / 0) (#120)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:03:42 PM EST
    it was a response who's tone I intended to reflect that of the author of this thread.

    The comment's contents were intended to point out, quite factually, that there certainly are those in the dem party who embrace Che and Fidel, though those two are certainly not embraced by "the" dem party.

    I do not support illegal immigration. I do not support amnesty. I do support legal immigration, work visas, etc., etc.

    Yesterday I came across a truly fascinating interview with a 20 y/o Mexican, in Mexico, who was brought to the US by his Mexican parents illegally at 1 y/o and had recently been deported.

    I was hoping for a Morning Open Thread to discuss it on, maybe tomorrow...

    Parent

    What's Harry done lately (none / 0) (#68)
    by hookfan on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:19:54 PM EST
    to erase the exploitation of "illegal" Hispanic labor by big business lately? Naw. We'd rather get into hissy fits about who is/not racist rather than really tackle the injustices that might hinder money flowing into politicians coffers.

    Parent
    Did you see Rachel Maddow's show (none / 0) (#146)
    by hairspray on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 12:10:28 AM EST
    tonite?  It was about the continued firing of decorated soldiers who happen to be gay and were outed.  She asked why the President wasn't signing an executive order to put a stay on these firings until the policy was solidified.  She really threw it into his face.  Great show!

    Parent
    Funny How the... (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:07:13 PM EST
    ...Cuban didn't mention conservatism and religion, which is what Hispanics identify with.  Seriously, how many Hispanics are pro-business ?

    I doubt there is a human alive who doesn't want lower taxes, the Democrats just happen to live in reality.

    Smaller government, whose definition ??  Certainly not the party that wants more war, abortion illegal, censor everything not Jesus-esque, can't be, that would require a larger government.

    Or wants the government to clean up (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Chuck0 on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 10:55:24 AM EST
    after BP. These humps want smaller government until they needs something from a Democrat. Then its, "you didn't do your job."

    Parent
    Am I the only one (4.00 / 4) (#32)
    by abdiel on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:22:37 PM EST
    who sees the GOP's response as "We don't hate Latinos. Just Mexicans."?

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by TomStewart on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:14:29 PM EST
    Good one, but every Latino is a 'Mexican' to some.

    Parent
    You are not alone (none / 0) (#67)
    by ruffian on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    Pretty much how I read it too.

    Parent
    You forgot (none / 0) (#70)
    by Zorba on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:24:43 PM EST
    Salvadorans and Guatemalans (although, of course, there aren't as many of them here as there are Mexicans).  

    Parent
    As another Cuban-American... (none / 0) (#1)
    by notime4lies on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:34:24 AM EST
    Let us not forget how Pedro Pans, like myself, and their parents, received instant 'get-out-of-jail cards' through refugee status, tax credits and cash for assets lost in Cuba and resettlement help.

    Guess we were lucky most of us looked European. Indeed, nothing irks a Cuban exile more than to be compared to other Latinos, except when it's convenient to make a Kumbaya statement, such as the one made by daughter of Cuban exile.  

    Indeed, although original exiles became part of the American melting pot, tell me, niñita, how many times have you been called spic in the hills of Miami...?

    LBJ was President for (none / 0) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:38:23 AM EST
    Operation Peter Pan.

    Parent
    Poor LBJ (none / 0) (#66)
    by TomStewart on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:17:57 PM EST
    All the good he did forever overshadowed by how he got the job, and the god-awful mess that was Vietnam.

    Parent
    He and Bobby (none / 0) (#69)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:21:08 PM EST
    hating each other's guts probably didn't help..

    Parent
    Democrats may have denounced (none / 0) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:41:37 AM EST
    the tyranny as you say, however, there are a fair few who vote stridently left who idolize Guevara and Castro. Heck, one long-time lefty poster here is such a Guevara fan-boy that his moniker is "Che's Lounge."

    That said, I do believe it's not the main Dem party that has these freaky leanings, only some of the moonbats within. By the same token there are some wingnuts who are just as freaky as those moonbats...

    BS (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:43:56 AM EST
    By that measure, there a re a fair few Republicans who embraced Nazism and the KKK.

    Parent
    Elected (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by lilburro on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:39:26 PM EST
    and public officials that represent the Republican Party say weird racist bullsh*t everyday.  They're trying to get rid of the 14th Amendment for heaven's sake.  Bob McDonnell....Andre Bauer and poor people being like "stray animals"... the list goes on.

    Parent
    Pearl River Mayor GOP James Lavigne (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:46:54 PM EST
    At the end of Tuesday's meeting of the Pearl River Board of Aldermen, Lavigne refused to allow Marshall to comment about an issue discussed during the meeting. When Marshall continued to try to ask a question about how long members of the fire board would serve, Lavigne told him he would not take questions and added, "I hope the Ku Kluxers get you, too."


    Parent
    Robery Byrd was a republican?? n/t (none / 0) (#8)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:45:35 AM EST


    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    But Strom Thurmond was.

    Parent
    And of course (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:48:38 AM EST
    David Duke.

    Parent
    Leading to the best political slogan (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:52:33 AM EST
    in history: "vote for the crook: it's important."

    Parent
    BS on the fact Byrd wasn't a member of the KKK (none / 0) (#14)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:53:20 AM EST


    Parent
    Apologies, I mis-read how you were answering (none / 0) (#15)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:54:47 AM EST
    the question about Byrd.  

    But he still was awful proud of his "uniform".

    Parent

    There have been several, at least, (none / 0) (#13)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:52:49 AM EST
    strident leftys here who have vehemently defended Guevara and Castro.

    That is fact.

    Whether TL is a representative sample of the dem party, well, your guess is as good as mine...

    Parent

    Just to clarify, su (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:16:19 PM EST
    are you claiming that the Cubans had no justification for revolting and overthrowing Batista in the fifties?

    Parent
    You have got to be kidding me. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:22:49 PM EST
    Read the comment thread that led to the comment of mine that you are responding to. Good luck with your trolling.

    Parent
    troll this (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:30:53 PM EST
    asking you to evaluate the Cuban revolution within  it's historical context is "trolling"?
     

    Parent
    Yes, it is trolling. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:57:29 PM EST


    Parent
    shut up (none / 0) (#82)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:07:43 PM EST


    Parent
    Yes, it is trolling. (none / 0) (#98)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:46:57 PM EST


    Parent
    it would be at your site (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:50:57 PM EST
    or at more left-leaning ones like Red State and Aryan Storm Front..

    Parent
    I wish you would not fight with Jim (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:45:01 PM EST
    But that was funny.

    Sorry Jim. Anyway, you are a big boy. You can take it.

    Parent

    I am here only to learn (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    at the feet of my Masters...

    Or something like that....

    Maybe it is to laugh at "them."

    Parent

    Keep the sense of humor (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:56:25 PM EST
    Where would we be without it?

    thanks for being a good sport.

    Parent

    Who in the *(&8691%$3 world said I'm good? (none / 0) (#148)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 02:38:31 PM EST
    I just love watching you spread the Democrat theme of the day!

    Parent
    Banning offense (none / 0) (#135)
    by waldenpond on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:18:03 PM EST
    Jeralyn was going to ban me a couple of weeks ago for arguing with Jim.  ha!

    Parent
    I would like to know who that is (none / 0) (#19)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:08:30 PM EST
    I have an interest in Che and Castro--as it has always been my thesis that the 1954 CIA coup of the democratically-elected Arbenz government in Guatemala created Che the Revolutionary and propelled Castro to power.

    Che met Castro in Mexico City after Che fled the 1954 coup.  Before the coup, the Latin Left believed they could change things through elections.  After the coup, Castro seemed very appealing....

    I get these facts primarily through Jon Anderson's authoritative biography.

    Che is a folk hero in Latin America but in a very vague, man-of-the-people way....and his fans there are not fans of his revolutionary theories or tactics.....

    Che wanted Khrushchev to launch during the Cuban Missile Crisis.  He and Curtis LeMay.....Two birds of a feather....

    Che was originally an interesting but feckless doctor trying to get a post in the Guatemalan Highlands treating the Indians there.....He turned into a stone cold killer who executed many.

    So, if someone here had praised Che or Castro, I would have noticed.....I do not recall that happening...

    Parent

    I'm sorry you don't recall. (none / 0) (#27)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:16:03 PM EST
    "Che's Lounge," at the very least, has posted several times of his praise of Guevara. Probably Castro too, I don't remember exactly...

    Parent
    I just ran a search (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:30:57 PM EST
    of "Guevera" on this site.  Only three threads show up--this one, one in 2006 and one in 2003.  I have not read every post, but I haven't seen any praise of Guevara.....

    If you are going to make the claim about pro-Castro/Che Guevara leftists being part of this site, the burden would be on you to prove it....rather than relying on Republican talking points and caricatures of liberals...

    And, you confuse the icon Che with the real Che Guevara.....Those in Latin America who wear Che tee shirts are not espousing his theories or tactics.....His image in Latin America is not the reality.....So, be careful how you judge....

    Parent

    If we rounded up (none / 0) (#31)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:22:35 PM EST
    all the "stone cold killers" a lot of them would have to give a lot of medals back; relinquish their condos in Miami; hand over the number of that numbered Swiss bank account etc..etc

    Parent
    I view the Che/Castro legacy (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:36:54 PM EST
    as a tragedy fomented in part by U.S. policy....Classic blowback.....

    If the U.S. had allowed the Guatemalan democracy to continue, perhaps Castro would have become a small time gangster in Mexico City or Havana, and Che would have stayed in Guatemala trying to romance wealthy widows who owned Guatemalan coffee fincas.......

    And perhaps Cuba would have had over the years a democracy like Costa Rica--even better because of its advantages over Costs Rico.....

    Parent

    There was still time (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:46:01 PM EST
    later, ca 1959, when Castro made his first visit to the US, but Ike deliberately snubbed him by sending the fierce anti-commie VP Nixon to meet with and insult him.  With some better diplomacy, as opposed to scoring cheap domestic political points by Eisenhower, maybe Castro doesn't go with the Soviets, and with friendlier US relations, maybe governs more from a benign social democrat perspective.

    The US in the Cold War (see also Ho Chi Minh overtures to US in the 40s and 50s) was always missing opportunities to bring some of these people closer to our side early on.  

    Parent

    The (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    we're-"tougher on communism"-than-you public pissing contest
    was already in full swing at that point..

    And diplomacy as "softness" not "toughness" was the accepted meme.

    Just as "talking to the Iranians without preconditions" is spun as "bowing down to Islamists" today..

    Parent

    Why would Castro have become (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    a gangster?  He was a law school graduate who was in Cuban politics before becoming a revolutionary.  Do you mean after he left for Mexico after serving his sentence for leading the failed Moncada Barracks attack?  I'm having trouble seeing how your counter-historical speculation develops.

    Parent
    It is pure speculation (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:15:33 PM EST
    based on his time in Mexico City going a different direction than collecting the refugees from the 1954 coup.....

    Just my opinion, but I assume that Castro was always an authoritarian.....Che, the younger version, I like to think had potential....

    Castro and Che have been folk heros to so many of the poor of Latin America....It is a shame, though, and an indication of the extent to which the U.S. so sided with U.S. corporate interests and the wealthy facists of Latin America over the poor who sought democracy.....Castro and Che were the only ones, they believe, who sided with the "people."  The U.S. was too busy helping the dictatorships kill the "people."

    Parent

    how does any bona fide (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    leader of a political movement function without at least a streak of an authoritarian tendency? I think that, as usual, we're talking about matters of degree here..

    According to at least one of Lincoln's biographers, Edgar Masters, even the sainted Abe had tendencies in the overly ambitious, authoritarian direction..

    This discussion seems a little like the one-man's-terrorist-is-another-man's-freedom-fighter discussion..

    Parent

    Lincoln didn't execute his (none / 0) (#123)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:32:55 PM EST
    political enemies....

    Parent
    I was gonna save this for (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:33:51 PM EST
    an open thread but there was none.

    Happy Ramadan :)

    Parent

    And a Merry Christmas to you! (none / 0) (#149)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Aug 12, 2010 at 03:17:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#47)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:43:36 PM EST
    Che's Lounge is a commenter here who has not commented regularly for a while. Last comment in July, 2010. One of the regular commenters who bailed when the Hillary refugees flocked to TL.

    His moniker is a pun on chaise lounge.

    And yes he was sympathetic to the Cuban left.

    You can review his comments here.

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (none / 0) (#51)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:56:22 PM EST
    Che's lounge is an interesting commentator....

    I did notice that BTD did not agree with him, and that he was not without nuance.....I would not chalk him up as a comitted Leftist supportive of Castro's continued rule in Cuba....

    And, I did see that I had commented in at least one of those Castro diaries....

    Parent

    If I recall the other (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:17:28 PM EST
    reason he gave for stopping posting was all the bandwidth eating (in the pre-Tall Cotton days) taken up by Jim's warmed-over News from Lake Leftbegone posts.

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:25:43 PM EST
    And at least Che's Lounge did not fall into the head exploding territory of Sailor, or Dark Avenger...  not to mention the trail of others who were banned because of the provocations of ppj...

    Parent
    heh (none / 0) (#75)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:55:29 PM EST
    Neither Sailor or Che was banned by TL.

    So if they quit commenting it was their decision, and I can't imagine either one of them running away from a debate.

    So that must be your own upper lip your sniffing there Jondee. 'Course you do that a lot.

    Parent

    As usual you (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:04:42 PM EST
    started out semi-articulate with the "heh" and went rapidly downhill from there..

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by squeaky on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:08:37 PM EST
    Dementia is setting in and your meds are not working, maybe you should try to up the dose...  

    In any case I was glad to take a trip down memory lane to recall that you not only supported McCarthy, but OBL and Sadaam.

    Was that during your pro muslim period?  

    Parent

    And posting Swift Boat links (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:12:18 PM EST
    four or five times a day in 2004..

    Parent
    Proof is just a (none / 0) (#101)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    link away. But you don't have any.

    But  unlike you, I won't complain if you do it.

    But doesn't all the lies you tell haunt you a small amount?

    Like a Lie Monster hiding under the bed, just waiting for you to go to sleep?

    Parent

    Try "DONT all the lies you tell.." (none / 0) (#105)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:06:54 PM EST
    what's with you people and this idea of confusing inarticulateness with patriotism?

    Some sorta' subliminable appeal ta' some frontier days memory; before we had all them nuculer devices?

    Parent

    Thanks (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 05:30:43 PM EST
    I can use a Secretary... Do you make coffee, clean windows and pickup up cleaning????

    But DON'T they??

    Parent

    Are you serious with this BS? (none / 0) (#134)
    by mexboy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:16:01 PM EST
    You are talking about one poster who is not here to defend himself and who may have/may have not--since you offer accusations but no proof--posted something positive about Che to make an indictment about TL or Democrats?

    Parent
    Not just Che but (none / 0) (#50)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:53:22 PM EST
    also Castro wanted Khrushchev to order a launch during that Crisis.  Both reckless hotheads.

    There -- I've said something bad about both.

    Of course, it has to be noted that Castro did calm down later and agree to meet, quietly, with a Kennedy-sent 3d party with a view towards not just easing tensions but a new beginning in the US-Cuba relationship.  So, even Fidel showed signs of being a responsible leader once his darker impulse was stymied.

    Parent

    Or it was after Castro realized that (none / 0) (#54)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:04:40 PM EST
    Khrushchev was not going to be the economic life line Cuba needed to prosper.

    Parent
    it makes a difference (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    as to whether the fringe elements actually influence policy.  In this case the record is clear.  Unlike the anti-latino sentiment on the right, which is quite effective at influencing policy.  Perhaps because it is not so fringe.

    Parent
    You may frame it any way you like, (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:00:45 PM EST
    but I think the reality is many Americans are tired of illegal immigration, which is mostly latino.

    I recently flew to the east coast and had a infant screaming for most of the flight in the seat right behind me. Not being kdog I didn't have the benefit of "a spliff the size of my arm," so I sure got tired of all that screaming. I sure hope that doesn't make me anti-child...

    Parent

    like i said (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:08:36 PM EST
    not fringe, influences policy.

    Unlike the pro-Che side of the Dem party.

    Parent

    Like I said,..ah, why bother. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    I think you are wrong. But I doubt there is anything either of us can say that would change the other's mind, so, why bother...

    Parent
    i assume (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:13:30 PM EST
    you are referring to me calling it anti-latino.

    Either way, you know what I mean about comparing that (whatever you want to call it) to the "Che-friendly" elements of the left.  Who have no influence what-so-ever on actual policy.

    Parent

    Latinos know who is "tired" of them (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:13:56 PM EST
    So, charge on......

    I do not understand why so many people are threatened by Latinos.  It is completely irrational imo.....but I grew up in a heavily Latino city and have Latino relatives, so Latinos and Latino culture are not foreign or different or threatening to me....

    Parent

    I'm with you, I don't understand why anyone (none / 0) (#30)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:20:12 PM EST
    would be any more threatened by Latinos than any other group. I do, however, understand why many are fed up with illegal immigration...

    Parent
    The problems associated with (none / 0) (#45)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:41:00 PM EST
    illegal immigration have been grossly exaggerated......for political effect and because of anti-Latino prejudice....

    Aside from anecdotal accounts, I haven't seen many studies that back up the complaints that Latinos are really overrunning our social services....

    Parent

    Regardless of your take on illegal immigration (none / 0) (#56)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:07:58 PM EST
    others have different experiences, exposures, etc., to it and therefor different takes on it. As my mom used to say: "There but for the grace of God go I."

    Parent
    Colorado's gubernatorial candidates (none / 0) (#100)
    by christinep on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 03:50:35 PM EST
    It is no secret that the Republicans in Colorado's just-concluded primaries appear to have gone off the rails. The anti-Latino words and actions (e.g., new Republican senate candidate Ken Buck and his night-time busts of immigrants at Greeley packing plant with the resultant sudden stranding of wives and children) have become a clamor from the right-wing. Now, in a release issued about a week ago, Democratic gubernatorial candidate John Hickenlooper has selected Joe Garcia as his Lieutenant Governor running mate. Joe Garcia is currently president of Colorado State University @Pueblo, was previously a member of onetime Governor Roy Romer's cabinet, and it widely acclaime for his administrative ability. It should be a very good campaign. (Note: I briefly posted this in another thread, and believe it deserves repeating. If only, for contrast.)

    Parent
    I married a Latina. (none / 0) (#108)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:19:30 PM EST
    And divorced a Latina. I may like latinos and get along with latinos, but I am VERY AFRAID of at least one Latina.

    (Shudders) I'd still rather stay here than fly back on Friday. Sigh.

    Parent

    lol... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:55:24 PM EST
    that was good...

    I'm sure you can relate to this recurring thought of mine regarding immigration...the most beautiful women in the world and we wanna keep 'em out?  What are we f*ckin' stupid!

    Parent

    MKS, you are an enabler... (none / 0) (#137)
    by mexboy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:24:21 PM EST
    You shouldn't post those things because they might come after you next.

    Parent
    only anti-child (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:15:34 PM EST
    if you are tring to kick kids off planes or remove their citizenship at birth

    Parent
    If I wanted to kick that kid of the plane (none / 0) (#35)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:24:46 PM EST
    would that make me anti-child? Because after 4 straight hours of screaming I'm pretty sure I wasn't the only one who harbored such thoughts...

    Parent
    Ya, it Would Because... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by ScottW714 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    ..That's what kids do.  Or are suggesting the one in your vicinity is a special gene set, you know, the crying kids gene set.  

    The difference is that you are complaining about one specific child, not the Canadian one, nor the European one, IOW, you are singling out one child, when they all scream.  Why, proximity I suspect.

    That would make you anti-child.

    You arguement is ridiculous in the first place, because you are comparing behavior to race; apples to tractors.


    Parent

    Apparently you are in the (none / 0) (#62)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:13:29 PM EST
    missing the humor gene set...

    Parent
    maybe (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:05:45 PM EST
    I mean to get them off the plane, you'd have to land somewhere first (if you wanted to throw them out the window - that prob qualifies as "anti-child").  That would require waiting for clearance to land, waiting for the kid to get off, waiting to take off, etc... etc...

    Must've been one annoying kid.

    Of course as a lefty my solution would be - give them their own plane - private jets for all children - paid for by taxing old people.  Thus creating world peace.

    Parent

    I meant ScottW714 is in the (none / 0) (#87)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:32:26 PM EST
    missing the humor gene set. You are all good.

    Parent
    yea i know (none / 0) (#88)
    by CST on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:34:07 PM EST
    i didn't actually reply to that post

    Parent
    Oops! (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:35:21 PM EST


    Parent
    But I do like the private planes for all children (none / 0) (#89)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:35:03 PM EST
    service, as long as their parents get to go with them and my 11 and 8 y/o qualify as for the service!

    Parent
    Always carry a couple of (none / 0) (#36)
    by coast on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    lolly pops on the plane.  99% of the time kid stops crying.  The other 1%, keep the bourbon flowing.

    Parent
    Lollypops. Brilliant! (none / 0) (#57)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:08:27 PM EST


    Parent
    Back in the day (none / 0) (#59)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:12:12 PM EST
    they used to have something called Mrs Winslow's Soothing Syrup..

    Parent
    a/k/a Benadryl?? :) n/t (none / 0) (#72)
    by coast on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:31:51 PM EST


    Parent
    Would make me anti child also (none / 0) (#38)
    by nycstray on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:28:44 PM EST
    Adults only flights sound good to me {grin}

    I had the "kick the back of the seat" kid behind me once from NYC to PR. I almost became more than anti child :-P

    Parent

    Brother man... (none / 0) (#91)
    by kdog on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    you always know where to find me, I coulda sorted you with a kdog pre-flight special for the return trip:)

    Parent
    I know you have my back! (none / 0) (#94)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:50:44 PM EST


    Parent
    Heh, Xanax works wonders (none / 0) (#109)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 04:20:27 PM EST
    on the seat-kicking being a bother.

    Parent
    Only by deliberating conflating Leftist (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Peter G on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:00:52 PM EST
    with liberal, and then liberal with Democrat (which is also a false equation), is it even possible to begin to make SUO's ridiculous claim.  No one in America can "vote stridently left" and also for Democratic candidates.  Many voters who identify as liberals are registered Democrats and generally vote for the Democratic candidate, but precious few Democratic candidates or office-holders are liberals these days.  And none, I'd venture to say, is a strident Leftist.  Yes, there is a handful of strident Leftists in America who embrace Castro, and many more who have treated Che as a cultural symbol of the romantic revolutionary, but no one can "vote" that way, certainly not for any Democratic Party candidates.

    Parent
    And while we're at it (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    it's worth adding that MOST of the spokespersons for the mainstream Right STILL defend the propping up of the Shah and his Savak torturers; the installation of the fascistic regime of Pinochet; the arming of Saddam in the eighties,(coincident with the selling of weaponry to the Iranians), and the training of Latin American torturers and death squads at the School of the Americas.

    Or maybe someone like su can hunt down a denunciation from some prominent members of the American Right of any of the above mentioned actions..

     

    Parent

    School of the Americas (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by MKS on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:19:47 PM EST
    Too many Republicans have tried to justify the policies that led to all kinds of horrors and genocide....

    Parent
    As MKS noted (none / 0) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:12:27 PM EST
    (forgetting that those were different times)

    Supporting the Shah, arming Saddam, fighting communism in Latin America made sense at that time. Indeed, it can be seen that if Carter had not gotten rid of the Shah terrorism as we know it would not have gotten started.

    You forget that.

    As for the evil that the Shah did, if you count up the people he tortured and killed and the ones tortured and killed by the radical Muslims who replaced him.... what is the score???

    And at least the Shah was moving, slowly I will admit, towards a western style democracy.

    As for Iraq, after Carter turned Iran loose on his neighbors it made sense to let Iraq slow them down.

    And on and on. Monday morning QBing is great fun but that game is over and we have to think about what's next.

    Parent

    What YOU and (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 06:30:51 PM EST
    the out-of-touch Ivy League "white man's burden" types who ran U.S foreign policy for years forget, is that a people will gravitate toward ANY ideology that promises to give them a sense of sovereignty and power over their own country and affairs.

    Hence the "communism" in Latin America, the Islamic revolution in Iran etc

    Maybe if the Dulleses, Herrimans and Bushs of the world had grown up working with their hands for more than a day in their lives - instead of wondering why the people of Nicaragua or Vietnam didn't all just go into the bond business - a lot of blood, sweat and tears might've been saved by some people with actual humane foreign policy approaches.  

    Parent

    Jim is on target (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:09:05 PM EST
    I have many US based Iranian friends and business associates who fled after the fall of the Shah.  To the man, each will chose to be back in Iran under the/a Shah government vs the radical extreme theocratic government that replaced the Shah.

    Was the Shah the best option, probably not, but it was a stable govt and country playing nicely in the international sandbox.

    Forget the embassy hostage situation for a moment and look at how Iran has played in the world since then.  For the first example, we only need to look back during the last 18 months.

    Parent

    Whether (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:20:58 PM EST
    the Shah was preferable to those particular people is irrelevant, imo.

    The question is, will someone like the Shah, propped up after a democratically elected leader had been ousted through the totalitarian actions of outsiders, ever have a "stable" regime? I say no.

    Your analysis is flawed and incomplete, at best.

    Parent

    the sins of those (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:26:28 PM EST
    who overthrew Mossadeq. That's, to a very large extent, what we're paying for now.

     

    Parent

    the more perfect (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jondee on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:30:52 PM EST
    solution is for nations to refuse to allow their intelligence and covert military assets to be used as the private goon squad of the shareholders of transnational corporations.

    Parent
    We may agree to disagree (none / 0) (#138)
    by BTAL on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:26:00 PM EST
    but I will take the word of those who were born and lived there over others.

    Again,, the Shah was not perfect for his country and citizens but the current regime alternative is significantly worse for all involved.

    That is where your analysis is flawed and incomplete.  

    Show me your "perfect" solution.

    Parent

    To sum up the anecdotes: (none / 0) (#152)
    by Jack E Lope on Sun Aug 15, 2010 at 10:30:20 AM EST
    Exiles are unanimous in preferring the regime that was in power before they became exiles.  Is that your first point?

    Sorry that I'm so late to this thread.

    Parent

    Best response would have been (none / 0) (#34)
    by coast on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:22:56 PM EST
    no response.

    His son (none / 0) (#37)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:28:22 PM EST
    "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican, OK,"

    Isn't his son getting his hind end kicked by a Republican named "Sandoval?"  Harry besides letting his racist side slip is showing his stupidity as well.  

    Actually, the embargoes against (none / 0) (#43)
    by brodie on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 12:39:32 PM EST
    Cuba began under Ike.  Then Kennedy strengthened them, for sure.

    Credit though to JFK and Castro for later beginning the process, quietly through Kennedy initiative and using admin backchannels, to reverse the insane and dangerous bitterness of US-Cuba relations and working to undertake a new relationship.  

    Why is it? (none / 0) (#86)
    by efm on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 02:23:01 PM EST
    Just about every country in the world has or tries to secure the boarders and and they try and do something about illegal immigration.  Why is it that if you want to do the same thing in the U.S. then your a racist?

    I feel the same way about illegal immigration with Latinos as I do with some Europeans that I know. But i only feel that way with the Latinos because i hate other races. The white Europeans i feel that way because its a crime and they didn't go thew the proper channels.

    Right Outraged That Reid States The Obvious: GOP Despises Latinos | 146 comments (146 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment