Those Indians buying up the land in Emmet County sounds like something
you would be against. I thought you were against nonwhite people taking
over the land from white people. Is it because it is Indians that you
are okay with it? I don't understand how it becomes a part of a
reservation, if it's not continuous. What do the Indians get out of it?
And I don't see how it's different from nonwhite people in Chicago
buying property from white people. They don't come in and steal it.
They pay for the property. I think you may be referring to
blockbusting, which was something run by white real estate people and
victimized both white and black people, and you know those white people,
if they weren't so racist that they couldn't stand a black person
living on their block, they could have just stayed and block busting
wouldn't have been possible.
And from your strange viewpoint you have a really odd idea of what is
going on in Chicago like there is some kind of big takeover struggle
between whites and blacks and hispanics. Well I think the problem is
that phrase, 'taking over.' You know in algebra if you do some
operations that involve dividing by zero all your math after that is
going to be screwy. Same with this phrase. If you use a word that
doesn't have a definition then the rest of your discourse doesn't make
any sense.
We also have Asians and Arabs and Indian Asians, and well all sorts of
people, and rich people who have more in common with each other than
poor people who have more in common with each other regardless of
whether they are white or nonwhite. And when people move to Chicago,
they move there for a job or family or whatever, they are not thinking
that this will help whatever ethnicity they happen to be to take over
Chicago. And when people move from one neighborhood to another it's
because they get a deal on a house or maybe they just like the way the
neighborhood looks, but they don't move just because they want their
ethnicity to take over another neighborhood.
I don't know where you get that people like to live with their own kind.
Well there is that birds of a feather adage thing that goes around. Ah
poppycock I say. People in the same circumstances tend to be clustered
together but that is just the chances of history. On the north side
people are pretty mixed up, nobody seems to mind.
If everybody was for their own kind to the disparagement of others this
country would be all fucked up, just like if the states were all
independent countries up to their own destinies this country would be a
backwater.
Those Swedes you speak of moved because their government wouldn't let them own land, not because there wasn't any land.
I don't see any reason to keep somebody who is Muslim or Mexican from
moving here as opposed to some white person who would also be a
stranger. And I don't see how letting them into the country is being
overthrown. Overthrown? I think this is just another version of
'taking over.'
Maybe I've overstressed the goodness of Democrats, well especially here
in Chicago. I hate to say it, but I think we need some Republicans, of
the RINO type, which means they would be reasonable not raving
lunatics. Why don't you guys go form your own party? Why don't you put
up some tents in the swamp and invite all those tea party people to
come join you in the freehold, and you can all arm yourselves to the max
and parade up and down the borders and hate everybody outside the
borders and be happy all day because you are all living with your own
kind?
Oh republicans. The problem here is that we have one party rule.
Generally if the party throws its weight behind some candidate that
candidate will win and so nobody needs to fear running against anybody
and they can do what they want, which is mostly to pile up a bunch of
money before they get carted off to the hoosegow. What can I say, we
voted in Blago for his first term, anybody can make a mistake. But when
he ran the second time and everybody knew he was a sack of shit he won
in another landslide. Well nobody's perfect.
No comments:
Post a Comment