LawTalkers
Page 29 of 334 « First 192728 29 30313979129 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Replaced_Texan 11-11-2005 06:29 PM
Honesty
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
When is the Motorola? I like Austin.
Don't you have a coming up wedding that might interfere with training schedules?

Did you just call me Coltrane? 11-11-2005 06:35 PM
Honesty
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Don't you have a coming up wedding that might interfere with training schedules?
The honeymoon might interfere. I don't see how the wedding would (it's not until summer).

Penske_Account 11-11-2005 06:43 PM
Honesty
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Don't you have a coming up wedding that might interfere with training schedules?
Experience says you can't let a wedding interfere with a big race.

[outable]I remember a friend who qualified for the World's. Huge. Biggest race of his burgeoning career. But. It conflicted with his upcoming wedding. Not directly, but in an indirect way, in a manner of speaking. Rather than just deal with the conflict and racing Worlds, he took the supposed high road and bowed out. In 20/20 hindsight, when the next two seasons produced a result of championship drought, there was......much.to.regret (hi Ty!) [/outable]

Of course, if its just a rinky dink race, don't let it fuck up the wedding. I bowed out of a race on the morning of my wedding. If I had crashed, the grief I would have received over the road rash and the damage it could have done to the pictures etc. would not have been worth it, although I still contend I could have won that race.

Hank Chinaski 11-12-2005 11:47 AM
Honesty
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
:sportswav

I like how all of their mouths open as they stand up.
if you're going to work for Spanky he'll expect yours to open when you go down.

Spanky 11-12-2005 08:59 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
AFTER Hurricane Katrina, Europeans rushed to congratulate themselves on avoiding the misery they saw on the faces of survivors. Such isolation and deprivation, they said, could never happen here. After two weeks of rioting in France, Americans are mockingly retorting that isolation and failure occur everywhere—and not only, some might add, in France. Britain saw immigrant riots in 2001. The Netherlands has radical Islamists who commit political murders.

Whether Europe or America really has the better record on accommodating ethnic minorities is an issue that may be debated ad infinitum. But the riots in France point to one particular area in which Europe has been unusually bad: integrating immigrant families from the second and third generations.

In America, the education levels, English-language skills and intermarriage rates of immigrant groups rise over time. So do income, home-ownership and political representation. This is the natural course of assimilation. But it does not seem to work in Europe. Some European countries (including France) do not collect ethnic-based statistics, so hard evidence is tricky to come by. But most indicators of second- and third-generation assimilation in Europe are disquieting. There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics. Most young men arrested after the French riots have been sons or grandsons of immigrants from the 1950s or 1960s. The murderer of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, was described by the chairman of a parliamentary commission as “an average second-generation immigrant”. Europe, it seems, has done less than America to assimilate the children and grandchildren of newcomers. Why?

The answer depends on another question: what makes immigrants adapt? Some people stress the role of the host country, and argue that European policy has been worse than America's. Certainly, European policy has been all over the place. In France, anybody can be a citizen, and there are no recognised group identities. The ban on the Muslim headscarf in state schools exemplified this assimilationist tradition. Germany, until 2000, was the opposite: nobody could become a citizen if they were not of German extraction, even if they met the usual conditions (such as being born in the country of parents also born there). Britain and (until recently) the Netherlands were different again: they have sponsored a tolerant multiculturalism, in which minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their distinctiveness, so long as they accept that others can do the same.

After the events of the past two weeks, some Europeans are arguing that the British approach is the better one. Yet Islamic extremism exists in both integrationist France and multicultural Britain. Neither France nor Britain has avoided segregation in immigrant areas, although Germany has. America is moving away from multiculturalism, which dominated in the 1980s, to greater assimilation (some states ban Spanish as a language of instruction, for example). The correct conclusion is not that one model is best, but that policy may not be what makes the difference.

Perhaps it is culture that counts. Maybe Muslims are unusually retentive of their original culture. Certainly, they are the targets of increasingly radical propaganda, demanding that they separate themselves from the decadent society around them. And many Muslims discourage their sons and (especially) daughters from marrying outside their faith or ethnic group. Since intermarriage influences how quickly second- and third-generation immigrants assimilate, this cultural preference may make it harder for Europe to integrate, say, North Africans than it is for America to integrate Hispanics.

But do not make too much of the difference. Hispanic intermarriage rates in America, though rising, are lower than mixed marriages in many multicultural parts of Britain. Americans worry about the different culture of Latinos just as much as Europeans do about North Africans. So even if immigrants in Europe raise cultural barriers to assimilation, this is hardly unique. What matters are the forces that work to overcome those barriers. Two stand out: work and home-ownership.

Work is the archetypal social activity. It provides friends and contacts beyond your family or ethnic group. If you start your own company, it pulls you further into the society around you. And here is a striking difference between Europe and America. Unemployment in France is almost 10%. Among immigrants or the children of immigrants, it is at least twice and sometimes four times as high. In contrast, unemployment among legal immigrants in America is negligible, and business ownership is off the scale compared with Europe.

The second big motor of integration is home-ownership, especially important in the second and third generations. This gives people a stake in society, something they can lose. Thanks to cheap mortgages and an advanced banking system, half of Latinos in America own their own homes. Britain, after its council-house sales and property booms, also encourages house ownership. In contrast, most of the blocks in the French banlieues are publicly owned.

Between them, a job and a house help to create not only more integration but also greater social mobility. Latinos supported America's turn towards assimilation because they feared the trap of Spanish-language ghettos. But the banlieues are full of people who have grown up without jobs, or any hope of getting a better income or a better place to live. For them, integration is a deceit, not a promise.

A job and a house will not solve everything. The father of one of the July 7th London bombers owned two shops, two houses and a Mercedes. But if you want to know why second- and third-generation immigrants integrate more in some countries than others, jobs and houses are a good place to start.

Penske_Account 11-12-2005 11:01 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
AFTER Hurricane Katrina, Europeans rushed to congratulate themselves on avoiding the misery they saw on the faces of survivors. Such isolation and deprivation, they said, could never happen here. After two weeks of rioting in France, Americans are mockingly retorting that isolation and failure occur everywhere—and not only, some might add, in France. Britain saw immigrant riots in 2001. The Netherlands has radical Islamists who commit political murders.

Whether Europe or America really has the better record on accommodating ethnic minorities is an issue that may be debated ad infinitum. But the riots in France point to one particular area in which Europe has been unusually bad: integrating immigrant families from the second and third generations.

In America, the education levels, English-language skills and intermarriage rates of immigrant groups rise over time. So do income, home-ownership and political representation. This is the natural course of assimilation. But it does not seem to work in Europe. Some European countries (including France) do not collect ethnic-based statistics, so hard evidence is tricky to come by. But most indicators of second- and third-generation assimilation in Europe are disquieting. There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics. Most young men arrested after the French riots have been sons or grandsons of immigrants from the 1950s or 1960s. The murderer of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, was described by the chairman of a parliamentary commission as “an average second-generation immigrant”. Europe, it seems, has done less than America to assimilate the children and grandchildren of newcomers. Why?

The answer depends on another question: what makes immigrants adapt? Some people stress the role of the host country, and argue that European policy has been worse than America's. Certainly, European policy has been all over the place. In France, anybody can be a citizen, and there are no recognised group identities. The ban on the Muslim headscarf in state schools exemplified this assimilationist tradition. Germany, until 2000, was the opposite: nobody could become a citizen if they were not of German extraction, even if they met the usual conditions (such as being born in the country of parents also born there). Britain and (until recently) the Netherlands were different again: they have sponsored a tolerant multiculturalism, in which minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their distinctiveness, so long as they accept that others can do the same.

After the events of the past two weeks, some Europeans are arguing that the British approach is the better one. Yet Islamic extremism exists in both integrationist France and multicultural Britain. Neither France nor Britain has avoided segregation in immigrant areas, although Germany has. America is moving away from multiculturalism, which dominated in the 1980s, to greater assimilation (some states ban Spanish as a language of instruction, for example). The correct conclusion is not that one model is best, but that policy may not be what makes the difference.

Perhaps it is culture that counts. Maybe Muslims are unusually retentive of their original culture. Certainly, they are the targets of increasingly radical propaganda, demanding that they separate themselves from the decadent society around them. And many Muslims discourage their sons and (especially) daughters from marrying outside their faith or ethnic group. Since intermarriage influences how quickly second- and third-generation immigrants assimilate, this cultural preference may make it harder for Europe to integrate, say, North Africans than it is for America to integrate Hispanics.

But do not make too much of the difference. Hispanic intermarriage rates in America, though rising, are lower than mixed marriages in many multicultural parts of Britain. Americans worry about the different culture of Latinos just as much as Europeans do about North Africans. So even if immigrants in Europe raise cultural barriers to assimilation, this is hardly unique. What matters are the forces that work to overcome those barriers. Two stand out: work and home-ownership.

Work is the archetypal social activity. It provides friends and contacts beyond your family or ethnic group. If you start your own company, it pulls you further into the society around you. And here is a striking difference between Europe and America. Unemployment in France is almost 10%. Among immigrants or the children of immigrants, it is at least twice and sometimes four times as high. In contrast, unemployment among legal immigrants in America is negligible, and business ownership is off the scale compared with Europe.

The second big motor of integration is home-ownership, especially important in the second and third generations. This gives people a stake in society, something they can lose. Thanks to cheap mortgages and an advanced banking system, half of Latinos in America own their own homes. Britain, after its council-house sales and property booms, also encourages house ownership. In contrast, most of the blocks in the French banlieues are publicly owned.

Between them, a job and a house help to create not only more integration but also greater social mobility. Latinos supported America's turn towards assimilation because they feared the trap of Spanish-language ghettos. But the banlieues are full of people who have grown up without jobs, or any hope of getting a better income or a better place to live. For them, integration is a deceit, not a promise.

A job and a house will not solve everything. The father of one of the July 7th London bombers owned two shops, two houses and a Mercedes. But if you want to know why second- and third-generation immigrants integrate more in some countries than others, jobs and houses are a good place to start.
I only read every 7th word of that post, but I am pretty sure the message is Euro-socialism sucks and the continent's imbedded preternatural racism doesn't help. Correct?

Penske_Account 11-12-2005 11:06 PM
I invented demonising the Dimwits' Klan ties
 
"Today when most of the country thinks of who controls Massachusetts, I think the modern-day KKK comes to mind -- the Kennedy-Kerry Klan,"

Substitute "DNC" for "Massacussetts" and he hit the nail on the head. STS. NPI.

Diane_Keaton 11-13-2005 11:09 AM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
AFTER Hurricane Katrina, Europeans rushed to congratulate themselves on avoiding the misery they saw on the faces of survivors. Such isolation and deprivation, they said, could never happen here. After two weeks of rioting in France, Americans are mockingly retorting that isolation and failure occur everywhere—and not only, some might add, in France. Britain saw immigrant riots in 2001. The Netherlands has radical Islamists who commit political murders.

Whether Europe or America really has the better record on accommodating ethnic minorities is an issue that may be debated ad infinitum. But the riots in France point to one particular area in which Europe has been unusually bad: integrating immigrant families from the second and third generations.

In America, the education levels, English-language skills and intermarriage rates of immigrant groups rise over time. So do income, home-ownership and political representation. This is the natural course of assimilation. But it does not seem to work in Europe. Some European countries (including France) do not collect ethnic-based statistics, so hard evidence is tricky to come by. But most indicators of second- and third-generation assimilation in Europe are disquieting. There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics. Most young men arrested after the French riots have been sons or grandsons of immigrants from the 1950s or 1960s. The murderer of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, was described by the chairman of a parliamentary commission as “an average second-generation immigrant”. Europe, it seems, has done less than America to assimilate the children and grandchildren of newcomers. Why?

The answer depends on another question: what makes immigrants adapt? Some people stress the role of the host country, and argue that European policy has been worse than America's. Certainly, European policy has been all over the place. In France, anybody can be a citizen, and there are no recognised group identities. The ban on the Muslim headscarf in state schools exemplified this assimilationist tradition. Germany, until 2000, was the opposite: nobody could become a citizen if they were not of German extraction, even if they met the usual conditions (such as being born in the country of parents also born there). Britain and (until recently) the Netherlands were different again: they have sponsored a tolerant multiculturalism, in which minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their distinctiveness, so long as they accept that others can do the same.

After the events of the past two weeks, some Europeans are arguing that the British approach is the better one. Yet Islamic extremism exists in both integrationist France and multicultural Britain. Neither France nor Britain has avoided segregation in immigrant areas, although Germany has. America is moving away from multiculturalism, which dominated in the 1980s, to greater assimilation (some states ban Spanish as a language of instruction, for example). The correct conclusion is not that one model is best, but that policy may not be what makes the difference.

Perhaps it is culture that counts. Maybe Muslims are unusually retentive of their original culture. Certainly, they are the targets of increasingly radical propaganda, demanding that they separate themselves from the decadent society around them. And many Muslims discourage their sons and (especially) daughters from marrying outside their faith or ethnic group. Since intermarriage influences how quickly second- and third-generation immigrants assimilate, this cultural preference may make it harder for Europe to integrate, say, North Africans than it is for America to integrate Hispanics.

But do not make too much of the difference. Hispanic intermarriage rates in America, though rising, are lower than mixed marriages in many multicultural parts of Britain. Americans worry about the different culture of Latinos just as much as Europeans do about North Africans. So even if immigrants in Europe raise cultural barriers to assimilation, this is hardly unique. What matters are the forces that work to overcome those barriers. Two stand out: work and home-ownership.

Work is the archetypal social activity. It provides friends and contacts beyond your family or ethnic group. If you start your own company, it pulls you further into the society around you. And here is a striking difference between Europe and America. Unemployment in France is almost 10%. Among immigrants or the children of immigrants, it is at least twice and sometimes four times as high. In contrast, unemployment among legal immigrants in America is negligible, and business ownership is off the scale compared with Europe.

The second big motor of integration is home-ownership, especially important in the second and third generations. This gives people a stake in society, something they can lose. Thanks to cheap mortgages and an advanced banking system, half of Latinos in America own their own homes. Britain, after its council-house sales and property booms, also encourages house ownership. In contrast, most of the blocks in the French banlieues are publicly owned.

Between them, a job and a house help to create not only more integration but also greater social mobility. Latinos supported America's turn towards assimilation because they feared the trap of Spanish-language ghettos. But the banlieues are full of people who have grown up without jobs, or any hope of getting a better income or a better place to live. For them, integration is a deceit, not a promise.

A job and a house will not solve everything. The father of one of the July 7th London bombers owned two shops, two houses and a Mercedes. But if you want to know why second- and third-generation immigrants integrate more in some countries than others, jobs and houses are a good place to start.
Fascinating, but homeowners or not, Latino-Americans aren't known for their anti-Western attitudes, fatwas, jihad or bad mustaches. And it isn't hard to integrate into a culture that shares the same religion and roughly the same traditions and values. Intermarriage? Gee I wonder why there's been more intermarriage between Latinos and non-Latinos. Surely Muslims are just as appealing as prospective spouses.

http://www.neurobashing.com/blog/ima...al-sadr.ap.jpghttp://www.pages.drexel.edu/~jcc22/oscar01.jpg
http://www.ciu.edu/seminary/muslimst...mages/lady.jpghttp://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/151/PP0544.jpg

Penske_Account 11-13-2005 04:00 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Fascinating, but homeowners or not, Latino-Americans aren't known for their anti-Western attitudes, fatwas, jihad or bad mustaches. And it isn't hard to integrate into a culture that shares the same religion and roughly the same traditions and values. Intermarriage? Gee I wonder why there's been more intermarriage between Latinos and non-Latinos. Surely Muslims are just as appealing as prospective spouses.


http://www.ciu.edu/seminary/muslimst...mages/lady.jpg
I picture her doing some madd rapturous falalalalalalalalala'ing.

sebastian_dangerfield 11-13-2005 06:14 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
AFTER Hurricane Katrina, Europeans rushed to congratulate themselves on avoiding the misery they saw on the faces of survivors. Such isolation and deprivation, they said, could never happen here. After two weeks of rioting in France, Americans are mockingly retorting that isolation and failure occur everywhere—and not only, some might add, in France. Britain saw immigrant riots in 2001. The Netherlands has radical Islamists who commit political murders.

Whether Europe or America really has the better record on accommodating ethnic minorities is an issue that may be debated ad infinitum. But the riots in France point to one particular area in which Europe has been unusually bad: integrating immigrant families from the second and third generations.

In America, the education levels, English-language skills and intermarriage rates of immigrant groups rise over time. So do income, home-ownership and political representation. This is the natural course of assimilation. But it does not seem to work in Europe. Some European countries (including France) do not collect ethnic-based statistics, so hard evidence is tricky to come by. But most indicators of second- and third-generation assimilation in Europe are disquieting. There are few North African or Turkish representatives in French or German politics. Most young men arrested after the French riots have been sons or grandsons of immigrants from the 1950s or 1960s. The murderer of Theo van Gogh, a Dutch film-maker, was described by the chairman of a parliamentary commission as “an average second-generation immigrant”. Europe, it seems, has done less than America to assimilate the children and grandchildren of newcomers. Why?

The answer depends on another question: what makes immigrants adapt? Some people stress the role of the host country, and argue that European policy has been worse than America's. Certainly, European policy has been all over the place. In France, anybody can be a citizen, and there are no recognised group identities. The ban on the Muslim headscarf in state schools exemplified this assimilationist tradition. Germany, until 2000, was the opposite: nobody could become a citizen if they were not of German extraction, even if they met the usual conditions (such as being born in the country of parents also born there). Britain and (until recently) the Netherlands were different again: they have sponsored a tolerant multiculturalism, in which minority groups are encouraged to celebrate their distinctiveness, so long as they accept that others can do the same.

After the events of the past two weeks, some Europeans are arguing that the British approach is the better one. Yet Islamic extremism exists in both integrationist France and multicultural Britain. Neither France nor Britain has avoided segregation in immigrant areas, although Germany has. America is moving away from multiculturalism, which dominated in the 1980s, to greater assimilation (some states ban Spanish as a language of instruction, for example). The correct conclusion is not that one model is best, but that policy may not be what makes the difference.

Perhaps it is culture that counts. Maybe Muslims are unusually retentive of their original culture. Certainly, they are the targets of increasingly radical propaganda, demanding that they separate themselves from the decadent society around them. And many Muslims discourage their sons and (especially) daughters from marrying outside their faith or ethnic group. Since intermarriage influences how quickly second- and third-generation immigrants assimilate, this cultural preference may make it harder for Europe to integrate, say, North Africans than it is for America to integrate Hispanics.

But do not make too much of the difference. Hispanic intermarriage rates in America, though rising, are lower than mixed marriages in many multicultural parts of Britain. Americans worry about the different culture of Latinos just as much as Europeans do about North Africans. So even if immigrants in Europe raise cultural barriers to assimilation, this is hardly unique. What matters are the forces that work to overcome those barriers. Two stand out: work and home-ownership.

Work is the archetypal social activity. It provides friends and contacts beyond your family or ethnic group. If you start your own company, it pulls you further into the society around you. And here is a striking difference between Europe and America. Unemployment in France is almost 10%. Among immigrants or the children of immigrants, it is at least twice and sometimes four times as high. In contrast, unemployment among legal immigrants in America is negligible, and business ownership is off the scale compared with Europe.

The second big motor of integration is home-ownership, especially important in the second and third generations. This gives people a stake in society, something they can lose. Thanks to cheap mortgages and an advanced banking system, half of Latinos in America own their own homes. Britain, after its council-house sales and property booms, also encourages house ownership. In contrast, most of the blocks in the French banlieues are publicly owned.

Between them, a job and a house help to create not only more integration but also greater social mobility. Latinos supported America's turn towards assimilation because they feared the trap of Spanish-language ghettos. But the banlieues are full of people who have grown up without jobs, or any hope of getting a better income or a better place to live. For them, integration is a deceit, not a promise.

A job and a house will not solve everything. The father of one of the July 7th London bombers owned two shops, two houses and a Mercedes. But if you want to know why second- and third-generation immigrants integrate more in some countries than others, jobs and houses are a good place to start.
Spanks -

Nice to see I'm vindicated. I've been offering a simplified version of your point since 9/11.

Give a man money and a chance to make more money, and a woman, and a future, and he'll drop that fundamentalist shit like a bad habit. Islam is what you have when you have nothing else. Religion is the currency of those without actual currency (there are some exceptions in the backward sectors of this country and others).

The best way to keep these people out of those silly goddamned mosques is to get them working in a manner akin to what's going on in India right now. We ought to start initiatives with the Egyptians and Jordanians and Saudis to open plants, call centers, tech centers, whatever... in their nations. They say Islam is where a lot of advances in math started hundreds of years ago. I think it was once considered the religion of the scientifically progressive and open minded. Why not help these people recover that glorious part of their heritage?

We could start be offering massive tax breaks to US companies which open plants in Islamic nations. It'll be ugly at first. There will be bombings and such, but I think in time, if we offer Islamic people a path back to the better part of their culture, they'll take it. One thing the Arabs are is shrewd; they will not walk away from a win/win.

SD

Penske_Account 11-13-2005 08:20 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Spanks -

Nice to see I'm vindicated. I've been offering a simplified version of your point since 9/11.

Give a man money and a chance to make more money, and a woman, and a future, and he'll drop that fundamentalist shit like a bad habit. Islam is what you have when you have nothing else. Religion is the currency of those without actual currency (there are some exceptions in the backward sectors of this country and others).

The best way to keep these people out of those silly goddamned mosques is to get them working in a manner akin to what's going on in India right now. We ought to start initiatives with the Egyptians and Jordanians and Saudis to open plants, call centers, tech centers, whatever... in their nations. They say Islam is where a lot of advances in math started hundreds of years ago. I think it was once considered the religion of the scientifically progressive and open minded. Why not help these people recover that glorious part of their heritage?

We could start be offering massive tax breaks to US companies which open plants in Islamic nations. It'll be ugly at first. There will be bombings and such, but I think in time, if we offer Islamic people a path back to the better part of their culture, they'll take it. One thing the Arabs are is shrewd; they will not walk away from a win/win.

SD
Except for the virulent and unabashed anti-semiticism in the radical moderate Islamic world of the ME, this makes some sense. Unfortunately Western Europe is proof that industry and commerce can't squelch ignorant hatred and prejudice against the Lord's chosen people (see France and Germany) or their freedom loving friends in the Lord's chosen shining city-nation on the golden hill, America.

eta: interesting reporting by the liberal MSM showing that a sizable number of Jordanians, who are a nation of the elusive moderate radical-moderate Islamic strain, believe Israel was behind the bombings last week, despite al Qaeda's claims of responsibility.

r-eta: SD, are we all supposed to be signing our posts now? TM style?

Spanky 11-13-2005 08:38 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield


We could start be offering massive tax breaks to US companies which open plants in Islamic nations.
SD
The AFL-CIO would never agree to this. But I agree with you. Free markets and economic growth are what the middle east needs. As soon as Mohammed is concerned about driving a nicer car than his neighbor Hassan all our troubles are over.

Free trade and free markets are the key. The problem is the Unions and the far left are in the way.

Spanky 11-13-2005 08:42 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Fascinating, but homeowners or not, Latino-Americans aren't known for their anti-Western attitudes, fatwas, jihad or bad mustaches. And it isn't hard to integrate into a culture that shares the same religion and roughly the same traditions and values. Intermarriage? Gee I wonder why there's been more intermarriage between Latinos and non-Latinos. Surely Muslims are just as appealing as prospective spouses.
Have you been by an inner city school recently? How about Juvenile hall? Or look at the average recruit in the US military. A large swath are multiracial. And if you didn't notice the article explained how muslims in this country have become much more integrated.

The US assimilates immigrants better than any country in the world. No other country on the planet even comes close.

Penske_Account 11-13-2005 08:45 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
The AFL-CIO would never agree to this. But I agree with you. Free markets and economic growth are what the middle east needs. As soon as Mohammed is concerned about driving a nicer car than his neighbor Hassan all our troubles are over.

Free trade and free markets are the key. The problem is the Unions and the far left are in the way.
2. Additionally, if Clinton's peace plan was any indication, his wing of the DNC is also no friend of Israel, which is problematic.

Penske_Account 11-13-2005 09:16 PM
Where Europe fails in its treatment of minorities compared with America
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Spanky
Have you been by an inner city school recently? How about Juvenile hall? Or look at the average recruit in the US military. A large swath are multiracial. And if you didn't notice the article explained how muslims in this country have become much more integrated.

The US assimilates immigrants better than any country in the world. No other country on the planet even comes close.
It's the American Dream, althought the concept of America as place of freedom and hope has become the American Nightmare to the UN-styled liberals and their comrades in the MSM who hate us first.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:22 AM.
Page 29 of 334 « First 192728 29 30313979129 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com