SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVES LOBBY FOR WORK BENEFITS FOR ILLEGAL MEXISHITS
Andy Carol
<jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote:
> http://vonbluvens.com
> SO-CALLED REPRESENTATIVES LOBBY FOR WORK BENEFITS FOR ILLEGAL MEXISHITS
> WHILE WHITE UNEMPLOYMENT RATE SOARS
> THE AMERICAN 'STAB-IN-THE-BACK'
> Do you really think the constituents of Arizona voted to have their
> jobs taken away by little brown chain-smoking-dwarfs? No, but Jews
> like,Arzberger, are lobbying for folks that don't even have the right
> to vote or work there. It's time for the people of Arizona to do
> something about the illegal Mexishit problem, and they should start
> by throwing Jews like, Arsebugger, out of office.
The list of people you label genericaly for your wrath is growing. You
don't like the Jews, Blacks, and now the Mexicans. Talk about knowing
someone by their fruit...
If only the Indians had had better immigration control 300 years ago
you'd still be in the old country yourself.
--- Andy
Andy Carol
<jazze...@coolmail.com> wrote:
> They are saying
> their position is not "White Supremacy" but "White Separatism." The
> Jews are those who are claiming supremacy over all the other races.
> ( See the Jewish Talmud for details. )
No, _SOME_ Jews take that position. Those specific Jews should be
called to task for it.
Just as _SOME_ Whites (ie KKK) take similar positions. I no more blame
all Whites for the bigoted words of a few as I would all Jews for the
bigoted words of a few.
In both cases those with the attitude are responsible for it. Not all
the others.
> > You don't like the Jews, Blacks, and now the Mexicans. Talk about
> > knowing someone by their fruit...
>
>
> Not true. I do not express hostility or hatred for ALL Jews, Blacks,
> and Mexicans. Instead one's animosity is directed at those who are
> claiming racial supremacy, which would -also- include the "White
> Supremacists." Animosity would be directed at Hispanic Supremacists
> who would attempt to recapture the Southwest and most of California
> by means of a breeding program (since Catholics oppose abortion).
> Animosity would be directed at those who do not remember the Alamo.
I remember the Alamo! It was a revolution so that rich White people
could continue to own slaves after Mexico had outlawed slavery.
The Alamo was an _extra constitutional_ move by a bunch of slave owners
to defend that right.
But you don't remember that part. You just remember the Disney movie
taking about "freedom" and "rights". You just forgot it was the
"freedom" to own other human beings and work them as slaves.
This is something that seems a sore spot with you. You switch your
logic to side with the slave holders. US South? Side with them and
blame the other side for breaking the Constitituion. Texas? Side with
them and blame the other side for trying to stop their rebellion.
--- Andy