From Arizona to Pacific Asian American History

[Crissa]

You know what? Party affiliation is apples as vote demographic is to oranges. Faced with the reality that you were wrong about asian americans protesting for equal rights fifty years ago, faced with the reality that asian districts (aside from Vietnamese, aka Hmong) vote overwhelmingly Democratic, you pull out something which has little to do with the question as asked.

That is like pointing out that until 2008 more people polled said they were Republican than Democrat... and during those years a Democratic presidential candidate won the popular vote three out of the last four times! Or that during that Democrats in Congress represented a majority of Americans, even when in the minority!

People identify poorly when it comes to groups. They'll say they are against government healthcare and for Medicare.

Who is being dishonest here?

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

Holy triple post Batman (Fixed).

But still, it's pretty much bullshit repeated three times. Asians classify themselves as Independents. So party is irrelevant to them for the most part. If they vote for Democrats a lot recently, it's only because they liked that party more at that time.

They voted for George Bush Sr (over CLINTON), then for Kerry, then for Obama. That's one Republican and two Democrats, but let's face it - we're talking about educated people who are being asked to vote for George Dubya and Sarah Palin. That probably has more to do with the Asian-American voting patterns than party affiliation.

By contrast, Hispanics are 57% Democrats. But over 70% of them voted for Democrats over the past couple of elections. Rather than being a minority that goes one way or another, the question with Hispanics is will they support the Democrats, or will they support the Democrats hugely.

So no, you're not making any case outside of general statements in the effect of "But every voter is different!". D'uh. That's why we use statistics to show who's voting for what and who's affiliated with what. And I've shown statistics from multiple elections (including Obama's) PLUS their general overall affiliations.

All you showed was "Asian-Americans voted for Obama in 2008". Something also noted in the wiki article, but still doesn't change the overall picture that Asian-Americans don't overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

In short, just because Asian-Americans voted overwhelmingly for a Democrat sometimes, doesn't mean they always do.

[Crissa]

You know what? Not only is party affiliation not relevent. But there is no logical following that Democrats are racists for either calling out racism or being voted for by groups more impacted by racism.

Do you think it magically goes away because you don't talk about it?

You aren't backing up your points when talking; nor did that wikipedia article back up why it said their voting habits were diverse.

What dishonest thing have I said? And mind, I didn't even mention Philippine Independence, so don't rely upon your faulty memory.

You know, that memory that didn't know who the Hmong people were or why they might vote GOP...

-Crissa

Yeah, Droid browser doesn't like tgdmb's hiccups...

[Zinegata]

But there is no logical following that Democrats are racists for either calling out racism or being voted for by groups more impacted by racism.

You're a fucking idiot who does not read.

I never called Democrats racist.

I called them hypocrites.

Because they happily play the race card for Hispanics and Blacks who vote for them.

But whenever a law or policy unfair to Asians come up, you don't hear the Democrats screaming "racist"! Do we?

I mean, really, crack laws are "racist", but an immigration law that, at times, limited the total number of Chinese immigrating to America at 50 people per year is not?

That's not racism. That's hypocrisy.

Try again.

[Zinegata]

And mind, I didn't even mention Philippine Independence, so don't rely upon your faulty memory.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Crissa

PS: The Republic of the Philippines came into being in '65. Not '46. How can you screw up your supposed own history? Geez.

Again, you are bad at this gotcha game. Mind-numbingly bad.

[Crissa]

Umm... According to wikipedia, that's the most recent name and constitution for the Philippines. If it's wrong, don't blame me. I didn't say independence, either. For instance, there are three dates that can be ascribed to the formation of a United States government, none of which are our Independence day.

Also, how about being wrong again?

It's like I stepped back in time to make you wrong.

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

Umm... According to wikipedia, that's the most recent name and constitution for the Philippines. If it's wrong, don't blame me.

Wikipedia correctly states that the name and most recent consitution of the Philippines was from 1986. There was no new constitution in 1965.

You. Did. Not. Read.

Also, how about being wrong again?

First of all, Glenn Beck is not attacking the rights, liberties, or property of Asian-Americans in that article. I'm not saying he doesn't do that. But let's be honest - Asian-Americans generally already have healthcare. In fact, many health care practitioners are Asian-Americans. Health care is NOT one of their core issues.

So to have an Asian-American Democrat play the race card against Glenn Beck in this instance is pretty stupid.

Pearl Harbor is racially tinged when used as a metaphor for an earth-shattering event that changed America? Is that Democrat on crack? What metaphor do you want Glenn Beck to use?

9-11 to be offensive to the victims of the families?

The USS Maine blowing up to be racist to the Spaniards?

The Confederates firing on Fort Sumter to hurt the feelings of Southerners?

Also, here's the real kicker:

Update ThinkProgress caught up with Honda today on Capitol Hill to follow up regarding Graham and Beck’s comments. Honda noted that in times of economic calamity, there’s usually an “ignorant politician” who will “scapegoat a group of people,” especially Asian Americans, for political gain

I was not aware that Asian-Americans were flying Zero fighters and dropping bombs on the USS Arizona on December 7, 1941. I thought those were the Japanese.

In fact, I would call it hypocritical to play the race card this way. Honda is pretty much exploiting his own experiences in WW2 for political gain. And the sad thing is? Glenn Beck's arguments are so fucking stupid that you don't need to play the race card against him t prove him an idiot.

Crissa, I'm beginning to suspect you're on crack.

Again though - the big kicker is that the Dems haven't called the immigration quotas as racist. If laws against illegal immigrants are racist, then laws against legal immigrants should be too.

[Crissa]

Well, I've come across incorrect sidebars before. I thought it a bit fishy, but I really don't care - even so it's not as though the government hasn't collapsed multiple times which was the point not the date.

Anyhow, your point was that Democrats would't yell racism, not that it had to meet your definition of unfair first.

Moving goalposts: all you.

-Crissa

[Crissa]

Again though - the big kicker is that the Dems haven't called the immigration quotas as racist. If laws against illegal immigrants are racist, then laws against legal immigrants should be too.

What the fuck are you referring to?

-Crissa

[Zinegata]

Wrong again.

My position in verbatim:

But whenever a law or policy unfair to Asians come up, you don't hear the Democrats screaming "racist"! Do we?

Your response was an article with Honda saying Glenn Beck is racist because Beck used Pearl Harbor as a metaphor.

Honda was not commenting bout a law or policy unfair to Asians. He was commenting on Glenn Beck's comments about a nationwide program that would mainly benefit other minorities.

And he's claiming its racist and exploits Asian-Americans.... when the act was perpetrated by Imperial Japan.

You're both definitely on crack.

The goal post, as demonstrated, never moved. You just never figured out where it actually was.

[Crissa]

Goalposts moved, and she still scores!

You can cut the insults now.

-Crissa

[Lago PARANOIA]

I think this link should pretty much speak for itself:

http://gawker.com/5529952/arizona-repub ... upremacist

[ubernoob]

Seriously?

I mean really, "you are not important enough to make personal attacks against" is itself a personal attack.

Again, seriously?

Wrong. Believing that the use of fucking pronouns is a calculated personal attack is just you being a little bitch that doesn't realize that this is the internet and that nobody fucking gives a shit if you are male, female, or purple platypus.

Seriously, you could be a purple platypus and you'd still be a bitch. If you think bitch is sexist, substitute in any other form of "Whiny annoying person" that you like to make yourself feel better.

[Kaelik]

Can someone who Kaelik isn't butthurt at tell him he's being an asshole?

And someone who isn't a girl tell him he's being a sexist pig?

Tried that and it didn't work.

WTF NAZI! Why would you even say that? Killing Jews for being Jews is wrong. You Nazi bastard.

You should apologize.

[Zinegata]

Crissa->

I've already shown the goal posts never moved. WTF are you talking about?

You know what, screw it. I'll just debate you the way you debate me. Crazy bible thumping right winger style.

Crissa, stop linking racist slurs against the Hispanic and African-American community. Just because they don't have greater financial literacy doesn't mean they're stupid and more suceptible to loan sharks.

God you're such a racist. How dare you claim that our black brothers and sisters are more gullible!

Maybe some day God will forgive you for your racism and show you how to be a decent human being who respects all men and women of all races, colors, and creeds.

[Zinegata]

I think this link should pretty much speak for itself:

http://gawker.com/5529952/arizona-repub ... upremacist

Democrats are hypocrites. Republicans are racist then .

[Zinegata]

What the fuck are you referring to?

-Crissa

For the benefit of everyone except Crissa:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Exclusion_Act

The US has had a long history of screwing over Asian immigrants. Specifically, they don't let them in, period.

This was but the first law in a long series of laws. That did not get repealed until 1965, when a comprehensive new law was passed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigratio ... ts_of_1965

Unfortunately, the trend has pretty much continued to the present day. While Asians are limited to about 20,000 immigrants per country (the number went up slightly in the 90s), Hispanics are able to cross the border illegally in the millions with little to no consequence.

However, when people try to clamp down on Hispanic illegal immigrants, the "racism" card is inevitably played. But when a Filipino woman wants to bring a relative from the Philippines into the US, and can't because of the quotas, the answer we typically get is "wait in line".

That's called hypocrisy. Because the party playing the race card all the time - the Democrats - want to keep the Hispanic vote. Whereas the Asian vote, being diffused and liable shift to the other party, pretty much gets ignored and only gets included in the discussion if some Democrat needs a stupid potshot against Glenn Beck.

[mean_liar]

Man, I don't even know where to begin. Let me just leave this here and those that need it can just fill it out and get back to me.

[Maj]

I don't know, maybe the people you speak with speak a form of English where the word has absolutely no gendered meaning. It's unlikely, but I'm not ruing it out.

Yes, that group of people is called "People under 30."

Fuck you. I'm 32.

PLEASE EXPLAIN, I AM REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED!

Anything biologically based isn't allowed to be discriminated against here. Any form of bias for/against will result in you being an Ist of one sort or another. Anything that a person is/does that cannot be directly tied to biology is fair game. Bigotry is totally allowed if the other person can help it.

I understand you aren't feeling my previous assertions on the matter, but I do believe the best way to go about this is to attack the demand, not the supply. Crank down HARD on people hiring illegals, not the illegals themselves. To the point where it's no longer profitable to hire them. My way was only one possible way to do that.

My instinctive reaction to your proposal was, "Hell, no!" But really, when I examine the basis for the idea, I think you have a really good point. I have a few concerns, though... Firstly, the draw to come here would be even greater. Secondly, employers would tend to shy away from people who look like they might be immigrants so they can be "assured" of hiring American. Thirdly, how do you enforce/regulate under-the-table jobs?

Something should be changed because the system sure doesn't work the way it is now, but I wish there were a way of testing these theories.

Crissa: I am genuinely curious because I have no idea how you do it... Do you have a special edition of Google that returns only results from blogs?

Mean Liar: Awesome.

[Kaelik]

PLEASE EXPLAIN, I AM REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED!

Anything biologically based isn't allowed to be discriminated against here. Any form of bias for/against will result in you being an Ist of one sort or another. Anything that a person is/does that cannot be directly tied to biology is fair game. Bigotry is totally allowed if the other person can help it.

But that doesn't actually have anything to do with this situation.

I'm not discriminating against anything, I am failing to discriminate. I consider Ceiling Cat's desire for X identical to other desires for Y, in that sense that I support the right in general to have and pursue desires, but don't really care what anyones desires actually are.

Also, your statement makes no sense whatsoever, because there is absolutely no desire that anyone in the universe has that isn't directly tied to biology. Ceiling Cat's transgenderism is exactly as biological as my desire to be a computer, or biker guys desire to have tattoos and ride motorcycles.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I'm not discriminating against anything, I am failing to discriminate. I consider Ceiling Cat's desire for X identical to other desires for Y, in that sense that I support the right in general to have and pursue desires, but don't really care what anyones desires actually are.

You really don't know what discrimination is, do you?

Calling someone a 'fake woman', which is exactly what you're doing, is as discriminatory as calling someone an N-word.

[Zinegata]

I'm not discriminating against anything, I am failing to discriminate. I consider Ceiling Cat's desire for X identical to other desires for Y, in that sense that I support the right in general to have and pursue desires, but don't really care what anyones desires actually are.

You really don't know what discrimination is, do you?

Calling someone a 'fake woman', which is exactly what you're doing, is as discriminatory as calling someone an N-word.

It's technically true. We've been over this before. Repeatedly.

The procedure does not turn a man into a woman. It's just... a form of plastic surgery.

[Zinegata]

Man, I don't even know where to begin. Let me just leave this here and those that need it can just fill it out and get back to me.

HAH!

[Cielingcat]

For clarification, neither me nor the majority of trans people have had srs, as it is a very expensive procedure that is rarely ever covered by insurance. Most people who get it have to pony up about twenty thousand dollars, and a good chunk of that is not going to come back to them.

It's also technically true that black people can be referred to by the n-word, as it, after all, is literally a term for black people! But I don't think even you would defend using that on a technicality.

[Maj]

But that doesn't actually have anything to do with this situation.

I'm not discriminating against anything, I am failing to discriminate. I consider Ceiling Cat's desire for X identical to other desires for Y, in that sense that I support the right in general to have and pursue desires, but don't really care what anyones desires actually are.

Here's a little more context...

Your earlier comment was this:

Do you believe that I don't respect people with tattoos? I mean fuck. Why would you think I have something against tattoos? Why should I respect someone's desire to be a woman more than I respect their desire to play basketball, or their desire to look awesome in a leather jacket, or their desire to shoot heroin?

PLEASE EXPLAIN, I AM REALLY FUCKING CONFUSED! Why is Ceiling Cat's desire to be a woman more important than anyone else's desire for anything else? Why should I be required to apply some different set of standards to this one desire than I do to everything else? What are these mysterious standards that I am supposed to apply?

I was just answering your question with the piledriven answer I received for comparing breastfeeding to public homosexual displays of affection in the Why Is It Okay To Hate Openly Gay People? thread.

The overwhelming response was that it's totally OK to be a bigot as long as the recipient can help it.

Also, your statement makes no sense whatsoever, because there is absolutely no desire that anyone in the universe has that isn't directly tied to biology. Ceiling Cat's transgenderism is exactly as biological as my desire to be a computer, or biker guys desire to have tattoos and ride motorcycles.

Please don't mistake my paraphrasing for my personal belief. I never agreed with that notion. I would wager, though, that if a child's desire to eat (and the corresponding desire for the boob-possessor to provide food) isn't considered biological enough in nature, that wanting a new motorcycle isn't going to fly.

Quite frankly, I'm largely with you in this retarded debate. I use the term bitch much like you do, and your comments regarding feminism were something I agreed with. When I first read your he-laced comments directed at Cieling Cat, however, I did think you did it on purpose, but I also consider reading the ensuing posts on the subject enough of a punishment that I don't need to really comment further on it.