Xenophobic and homophobic Conks want to boycott Coke

[Ibanez]

I'm sure he's a "libertarian" or an "independent" that votes 99.99% GOP.

Wrong, didn't ever vote for that RINO Arlen Specter (before he became a donk).
Won't vote for my RINO congressman Pat Meehan this Nov either.

2 guys.

[BDKJMU]

Wrong, didn't ever vote for that RINO Arlen Specter (before he became a donk).
Won't vote for my RINO congressman Pat Meehan this Nov either.

2 guys.

Wrong. Will be 4 alone from just this year. In addition to Meehan, there's the RINO PA Gov Tom Corbett, and my 2 local state legislators, both allegedly Republican, who voted to give PA the highest gas taxes in the nation by 2017. 1/3 of increase took effect this yr where we went from 15th highest to 5. 1/3 to take effect next year and 1/3 2017. And we already have some of the highest tolls in the country that have more than doubled in the 12 years I've lived in PA.
http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/busi ... -1.1441386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Ibanez]

2 guys.

Wrong. Will be 4 alone from just this year. In addition to Meehan, there's the RINO PA Gov Tom Corbett, and my 2 local state legislators, both allegedly Republican, who voted to give PA the highest gas taxes in the nation by 2017. 1/3 of increase took effect this yr where we went from 15th highest to 5. 1/3 to take effect next year and 1/3 2017. And we already have some of the highest tolls in the country that have more than doubled in the 12 years I've lived in PA.
http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/busi ... -1.1441386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So you dont vote for the republicans and by virtue of your posts I'm sure you aren't voting Democrat so are you even voting?

[CAA Flagship]

2 guys.

Wrong. Will be 4 alone from just this year. In addition to Meehan, there's the RINO PA Gov Tom Corbett, and my 2 local state legislators, both allegedly Republican, who voted to give PA the highest gas taxes in the nation by 2017. 1/3 of increase took effect this yr where we went from 15th highest to 5. 1/3 to take effect next year and 1/3 2017. And we already have some of the highest tolls in the country that have more than doubled in the 12 years I've lived in PA.
http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/busi ... -1.1441386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Odd because PA roads have a history of being terrible. What do they use the high toll money for anyway?

[AZGrizFan]

Wrong. Will be 4 alone from just this year. In addition to Meehan, there's the RINO PA Gov Tom Corbett, and my 2 local state legislators, both allegedly Republican, who voted to give PA the highest gas taxes in the nation by 2017. 1/3 of increase took effect this yr where we went from 15th highest to 5. 1/3 to take effect next year and 1/3 2017. And we already have some of the highest tolls in the country that have more than doubled in the 12 years I've lived in PA.
http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/busi ... -1.1441386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Odd because PA roads have a history of being terrible. What do they use the high toll money for anyway?

Their summer homes...like every other politician.

[dbackjon]

2 guys.

Wrong. Will be 4 alone from just this year. In addition to Meehan, there's the RINO PA Gov Tom Corbett, and my 2 local state legislators, both allegedly Republican, who voted to give PA the highest gas taxes in the nation by 2017. 1/3 of increase took effect this yr where we went from 15th highest to 5. 1/3 to take effect next year and 1/3 2017. And we already have some of the highest tolls in the country that have more than doubled in the 12 years I've lived in PA.
http://m.thetimes-tribune.com/news/busi ... -1.1441386" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You are so far right you think Corbett is a RINO? Wow.

[UNHWildCats]

I wrote this on facebook Sunday night.



America is a land of immigrants. Most people here today are here because their ancestors immigrated to America at some point between 1607 and today. Sure there is a small group of Americans who are completely of Native American descent, but for most of us, we come from ancestors who immigrated.

As a country of immigrants we should embrace our past and encourage others to do the same. We can and should embrace the past while at the same time embracing the present. That's why I loved the Coca Cola commercial "It's Beautiful" during tonight's Super Bowl.

Starting in the late 1890s my ancestors began immigrating to America from Italy, England, Germany and Quebec, I am proud of where my family comes from just as much as where we are today. If I was a first generation American who spoke both English and a native language such as French or Italian or German, I would be just as proud to speak that at times as I would to speak English.

Our food is a mixture of everyplace we have come from, why can't our spoken word be as well?

I applaud Coca Cola for their commercial. I applaud them for having the guts to air it.

To those who attack it, you attack everything America is about.

[CID1990]

I wrote this on facebook Sunday night.



America is a land of immigrants. Most people here today are here because their ancestors immigrated to America at some point between 1607 and today. Sure there is a small group of Americans who are completely of Native American descent, but for most of us, we come from ancestors who immigrated.

As a country of immigrants we should embrace our past and encourage others to do the same. We can and should embrace the past while at the same time embracing the present. That's why I loved the Coca Cola commercial "It's Beautiful" during tonight's Super Bowl.

Starting in the late 1890s my ancestors began immigrating to America from Italy, England, Germany and Quebec, I am proud of where my family comes from just as much as where we are today. If I was a first generation American who spoke both English and a native language such as French or Italian or German, I would be just as proud to speak that at times as I would to speak English.

Our food is a mixture of everyplace we have come from, why can't our spoken word be as well?

I applaud Coca Cola for their commercial. I applaud them for having the guts to air it.

To those who attack it, you attack everything America is about.

Lol yeah it took "guts" to air the commercial. Coke knew exactly what they were doing- it was time for the wingnuts to get their monthly scolding - needed or not

Faux outrage, pointed out just minutes after the ad aired.

http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/theyr ... t-know-it/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

But thanks for the unique yet somehow familiar biopic/lecture about how we should all think just like you

[JohnStOnge]

Things are different now. We've all heard of the historical "melting pot" concept associated with the United States. Here is its definition from http://sociology.about.com/od/M_Index/g/Melting-Pot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Melting pot is a concept referring to a heterogeneous society becoming more homogenous with the different elements “melting together” into a harmonious whole with a common culture. In is most commonly used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States.

That was never entirely accomplished but it was the goal and there was inertia towards it. Immigrants were encouraged, perhaps even pressured, to melt into a general shared culture. The second part of the narrative at that web page describes what's going on now:

This term is often challenged, however, by those who assert that cultural differences within a society are valuable and should be preserved. An alternative metaphor, therefore, is salad bowl or mosaic, describing how different cultures mix, but still remain distinct.

Those who hold the point of view described by the second quote have prevailed. And their view is incorrect. The melting pot approach is the superior approach. The "salad bowl" concept is not a good one. But it's what we've largely moved to.

Immigration was fine under the melting pot concept. It's not so fine now when we have immigrants coming in believing basically in socialism and gaining more and more influence over the direction of the country. The country is losing the identity that got it to the top.

[JohnStOnge]

There are a number of poll results cited in the conservative thesis at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... s-schlafly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but here is one that should stand out:

Only 37 percent of naturalized citizens (compared with 67 percent of native-born citizens) think our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law.

That's a problem. You can spin it any way you want, you can attack the source of the article, whatever. But that is not a good thing. We are at risk of having the most successful system of all time destroyed through a gradual erosion brought on by immigrants who do not believe in the principles at the foundation of this country. I really don't think the situation was the same back in the 1600s through 1800s. Not even the 1900s.

I don't have polling data to support that last statement. But it's what I believe.

[JohnStOnge]

By the way, "xenophobia" is another one of those words that was invented relatively recently and which is used in an ad hominem way to try to dismiss legitimate concerns and positions. According to Websters its first known use was in 1903. I wouldn't be surprised if a liberal invented it specifically for the above-stated purpose. Kind of like "homophobia" was invented as part of the effort to marginalize people who have the sense to know that something like the idea of marriage between two members of the same sex is absurd.

If I say, for instance, I am concerned about the current system of Muslim cultures in the Middle East and Asia that is a perfectly rational concern. It is not a phobia. A phobia is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." It has the characteristic of not being rational.

But concern about the manifestations of the Muslim cultures of the Middle East and Asia is not illogical or irrational at all. It is not "inexplicable." There are obvious reasonable explanations for it. What's irrational is to act like there is no such thing as cultural paradigms that are problematic and SHOULD cause concern; that should be resisted and excluded if possible.

The word "xenophobic," however, has been repeatedly used to try to dismiss such rational concerns. Don't fall for it. If they call you names they call you names. That doesn't change the truth.

[Ibanez]

JSO, Nativism was the term before xenophobia. It's not as recent as you think. Still, you're still hateful of people non whites and non Europeans. You do realize this is the 21st century? Tolerance and acceptance isn't weakness or a compromise of values and morales. You and BDK are just bigoted. It's ok, we already knew that

[Skjellyfetti]

If I say, for instance, I am concerned about the current system of Muslim cultures in the Middle East and Asia that is a perfectly rational concern. It is not a phobia. A phobia is "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." It has the characteristic of not being rational.

But concern about the manifestations of the Muslim cultures of the Middle East and Asia is not illogical or irrational at all. It is not "inexplicable." There are obvious reasonable explanations for it. What's irrational is to act like there is no such thing as cultural paradigms that are problematic and SHOULD cause concern; that should be resisted and excluded if possible.

You're right. That wouldn't be a great example of xenophobia. Simply being concerned about conflict in the Middle East and Asia isn't xenophobia... just as it isn't antisemitism to feel the same way about Israel.

A better example would be people threatening to boycott a company because they show foreigners in the United States and sing "America the Beautiful" in other languages. To me... that IS an example of "an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of a particular object, class of objects, or situation." It is definitely not rational imo.

Hopefully you could see the difference between being concerned with conflict in Israel (not antisemitic) vs. boycotting a company because they have Jews in a commercial (antisemitic).

[JohnStOnge]

You're right. That wouldn't be a great example of xenophobia. Simply being concerned about conflict in the Middle East and Asia isn't xenophobia... just as it isn't antisemitism to feel the same way about Israel.

A better example would be people threatening to boycott a company because they show foreigners in the United States and sing "America the Beautiful" in other languages.

I'm not talking about concern about the conflict in the Middle East. I'm talking about the culture that facilitates that conflict and so many others. The Islamic culture.

I personally do not have a big issue with the commercial and would not think to boycott anybody over it. Of course I also didn't quit using Google because they that that stupid thing Friday where they made a multicolored icon in support of homosexuality. I don't do that sort of thing unless it's really, really bad.

But the message of that commercial is of concern. It reflects the "salad bowl" approach of promoting multiculturalism. This country SHOULD have one official language. That would make it a more efficient and effective country. And it SHOULD promote and facilitate the "melting pot" approach to assimilation. Being concerned about people promoting multiculturalism and making it seem as though a country characterized by multiple languages is a positive thing is not irrational. It's not a positive thing.

I'll elaborate on the first time I was exposed to discussion of this issue. A Black world history teacher I had in the 9th or 10th grade (can't remember which) went through a lengthy discussion of how the United States had an advantage over countries like China and India because the United States is characterized by basically one dominant language and one general over-arching culture while China and India are characterized by multiple languages and cultures. He talked about how that made it impossible for China and India to function as efficiently as the United States does. And that makes sense. Pretty close to a self-evident thing.

I know the question of whether the guy giving the lecture was Black or White has no bearing on the validity of his point. But I added it in this case because I was not introduced to the concept by someone in my "group."

I guarantee you that guy, if he is still alive, would agree with me that being concerned about promoting multiple languages as though that is a good thing is not illogical or inexplicable. It's not xenophobia.

[Skjellyfetti]

But the message of that commercial is of concern. It reflects the "salad bowl" approach of promoting multiculturalism. This country SHOULD have one official language. That would make it a more efficient and effective country. And it SHOULD promote and facilitate the "melting pot" approach to assimilation. Being concerned about people promoting multiculturalism and making it seem as though a country characterized by multiple languages is a positive thing is not irrational. It's not a positive thing.

What do you think about Louisiana having, essentially, two languages?

When advertisements are required to be made in relation to judicial process, or in the sale of property for undpaid taxes, or under judicial process or any other legal process of whatever kind, they shall be made in the English language and may in addition be duplicated in the French language. State and local officials and public institutions are reconfirmed in the traditional right to publish documents in the French language in addition to English.

Louisiana's constitution:

The right of the people to preserve, foster, and promote their respective historic linguistic and cultural origins is recognized.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, Nativism was the term before xenophobia. It's not as recent as you think. Still, you're still hateful of people non whites and non Europeans. You do realize this is the 21st century? Tolerance and acceptance isn't weakness or a compromise of values and morales. You and BDK are just bigoted. It's ok, we already knew that

"Xenophobia" as a word has more impact. It implies being irrational and mentally ill. Having "phobia" be part of the word does that.

Tolerance and acceptance can indeed be a weakness. I think that if you contemplate that statement for a while you'll agree that it is true. It's just a question of what one thinks should be tolerated and accepted and what one thinks should not be. Besides, there is a difference between tolerating different languages and cultures and actually promoting the "salad bowl" concept.

If you think I'm a bigot so be it. "Bigot" is just a word. People calling me names is not going to change what I say.

[ALPHAGRIZ1]

What happened in your childhood to make you such a hateful and bitter person? I'm genuinely curious.

Too many f***in liberals.....

AGREED

Don't you love the way the gay and lib hate groups are so compassionate?

Name calling, hating on the KKK and any person that doesn't conform to their pussy utopia, glad there are still people with a spine out there BDK.....keep up the good work.

[JohnStOnge]

Louisiana's constitution:

The right of the people to preserve, foster, and promote their respective historic linguistic and cultural origins is recognized.

I don't think people should be denied the right to speak a language other than English if they want to or to maintain certain cultural traditions. But there should be an official language and a person should have to master that language in order to function rather than expect to larger society to adjust to some other language. There should not be, for example, the massive current effort to accommodate Spanish speaking people who apparently cannot speak English well enough to function.

And if you are an immigrant you should not be allowed citizenship until you demonstrate English proficiency.

When I was a kid I'd go to my maternal grandparents' house and all of the adults sat around and talked in Cajun French. But they were all also proficient in English and they were able to function in the larger culture. They didn't need to have the option of someone talking to them in Cajun French when they made a phone call to a store or something. They also had their Cajun culture but were part of the larger culture at the same time. They did not expect the larger culture to accommodate them in any way. They looked at it as their job to adjust as necessary to the larger culture rather than expecting the larger culture to adjust to them.

And that's the way it should be.

[Ibanez]

JSO, Nativism was the term before xenophobia. It's not as recent as you think. Still, you're still hateful of people non whites and non Europeans. You do realize this is the 21st century? Tolerance and acceptance isn't weakness or a compromise of values and morales. You and BDK are just bigoted. It's ok, we already knew that

"Xenophobia" as a word has more impact. It implies being irrational and mentally ill. Having "phobia" be part of the word does that.

Tolerance and acceptance can indeed be a weakness. I think that if you contemplate that statement for a while you'll agree that it is true. It's just a question of what one thinks should be tolerated and accepted and what one thinks should not be. Besides, there is a difference between tolerating different languages and cultures and actually promoting the "salad bowl" concept.

If you think I'm a bigot so be it. "Bigot" is just a word. People calling me names is not going to change what I say.

I wasn't calling you a name, I was stating a fact. A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc." Also, regardless of the impact of the word, you are still wrong. Nativism is probably a better word to use. You might not have an irrational fear of foreigners (xenophobia) but you have an opposition to immigration and the incoming culture (nativism).

You're using negative views to say tolerance and acceptance is bad. In the case of Nazi Germany, yes it is bad to tolerate and accept that behavior and culture. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the assimilation of cultures into a society that has been a melting pot since the beginning. We're discussing the fact that there are American citizens that speak languages other than English (as either a 1st or 2nd language) and their cultures, traditions, customs,etc.. have taken root in America. But, because they aren't white and/or of European descent, you don't like it. Namely, Hispanics, Asians, Africans and Middle Eastern people.

[houndawg]

Things are different now. We've all heard of the historical "melting pot" concept associated with the United States. Here is its definition from http://sociology.about.com/od/M_Index/g/Melting-Pot.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; :

Melting pot is a concept referring to a heterogeneous society becoming more homogenous with the different elements “melting together” into a harmonious whole with a common culture. In is most commonly used to describe the assimilation of immigrants to the United States.

That was never entirely accomplished but it was the goal and there was inertia towards it. Immigrants were encouraged, perhaps even pressured, to melt into a general shared culture. The second part of the narrative at that web page describes what's going on now:

This term is often challenged, however, by those who assert that cultural differences within a society are valuable and should be preserved. An alternative metaphor, therefore, is salad bowl or mosaic, describing how different cultures mix, but still remain distinct.

Those who hold the point of view described by the second quote have prevailed. And their view is incorrect. The melting pot approach is the superior approach. The "salad bowl" concept is not a good one. But it's what we've largely moved to.

Immigration was fine under the melting pot concept. It's not so fine now when we have immigrants coming in believing basically in socialism and gaining more and more influence over the direction of the country. The country is losing the identity that got it to the top.

So much foolishness in so few words. A big improvement.

"Identity" had nothing to do with getting to the top, John. It nearly unlimited natural resources that got us there. Most of which belonged to others.

[houndawg]

There are a number of poll results cited in the conservative thesis at http://www.nationalreview.com/article/3 ... s-schlafly" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; but here is one that should stand out:

Only 37 percent of naturalized citizens (compared with 67 percent of native-born citizens) think our Constitution is a higher legal authority than international law.

That's a problem. You can spin it any way you want, you can attack the source of the article, whatever. But that is not a good thing. We are at risk of having the most successful system of all time destroyed through a gradual erosion brought on by immigrants who do not believe in the principles at the foundation of this country. I really don't think the situation was the same back in the 1600s through 1800s. Not even the 1900s.

I don't have polling data to support that last statement. But it's what I believe.

Many systems have been more successful than ours John. We've only been here 200 years and we're already seeing the beginning of the decline of the empire. Rome was far more successful.

[JohnStOnge]

"Identity" had nothing to do with getting to the top, John. It nearly unlimited natural resources that got us there. Most of which belonged to others.

Natural resources were a factor. But lots of countries have natural resources. There are a lot of natural resources in Central and South America, for example. There are a lot of natural resources in what once was the Soviet Union. There are a lot of natural resources in Africa. And, obviously, there is a lot of a very important natural resource in the Middle East.

It's not the natural resources that made the critical difference. It was the "identity." They system. Both things were factors. But the system was the more important one.

[JohnStOnge]

Many systems have been more successful than ours John. We've only been here 200 years and we're already seeing the beginning of the decline of the empire. Rome was far more successful.

The system that made us successful is being lost. That's the point. It was very successful when it was being applied. But now it's being altered.

[JohnStOnge]

wasn't calling you a name, I was stating a fact. A bigot is "a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc."

When you call a person a "bigot" you are not stating a fact. You are stating an opinion. By that definition you have to form the opinion that someone "unfairly" has an outlook.

I do dislike certain ideas. I dislike what the polls show about the attitudes and philosophies certain groups tend to hold. But I do not agree with your opinion that there is anything "unfair" about the conclusions I've reached or the positions I have taken. I think they are entirely justified.

When it comes to individuals I assess them on a case by case basis. For instance, I have no problem pointing to Black people I am fine with. Walter Williams. Thomas Sowell. Clarence Thomas. And...as an aside...Clarence Thomas is married to a White woman. I'm fine with those guys because I like their philosophical outlooks. They could be trusted with power. They are, as individuals, positive influences.

But when I look at the Black community as a whole I see a community that votes 90% plus Democrat in every election and tends to think that it's owed special consideration. That tends to think that its members should get the job or the college admission or whatever even when they are not even close to the most qualified for it. That tends to think big government is a good thing.

So I think that, in general, the Black community is a negative influence on our civilization right now. And it's not an unfair outlook at all.

Of course it's not the Black community's fault that it's here. We did that. But illegal immigration from Mexico, for example, is different. Nobody is going out and capturing those people and bringing them here in chains. We should not be accepting them. Nor should we be doing things to accommodate them such as making sure that there is an "Spanish" option every time someone calls some business or institution. We should be making it harder for them to live and survive here, not easier. And that's not an unfair attitude either.

[Skjellyfetti]

Is there a single minority group that has any redeeming qualities to you?