There seems to be niggers everywhere...
>>20
"If a fascist leader Was. Elected..."
So the best way to beat fascism democratically elected is to coup with an even more hardcore fascist? Or are you gonna argue that a dictator who was responsible for the dissapearing of thousands are less a fascist than a democratically elected socialist whos economic reforms are creating temporary turmoil in the market? Shit, you really do hate people, dont you?
And besides, isnt it time the EU displaced bush then? Put i dont know, wesly clark in power? For democracy and freedom and all that? From the other side of the pond your leadership seems to have lost it completly and even when he was elected it was by a minority. Dangerous precedence, can you spell it?
"Do you want me to spend more than 60 seconds fruitlessly searching for hispanics who stand against racism in their own community?"
If you want to claim them being racist extremist, yes. Or rather, what are your criticism intended to do? Wake the leaders of the hispanic community up so they can adress rampant bigottry among its ranks? Strange place and thread to do that. Wake whiteys up to the impending doom of hispanics plotting to change the demographic distribution of america? Reminds me of the irish immigration to the US in 20th century, lot of people worried that they took all the jobs and changed the religious dominance towards catholicism. Led to teh republican party and the civil war i believe, groundless agitation is a dangerous thing.
"I don't need to compile any statistics to see that there is a distinct lack of pressure on hispanics not to be racist."
Buhu, its not fair them allowed to haet while i must be nice to everybody! Stop yer fucking crying you nancy.
"Well what other point is there? [than funtionality as opposed to morality or ethics]"
Well, as i said, if you assume that the only things necessary in a society are those that yield benefits, then you are entering the domain of nihilism and open the door for erasing unwanteds by flamethrower. I admit, its a slippery slope argument, but it stands as libertarianism is not really a serious contender in the clash of ideougies, is it now? If you have no principles (other than "profitability always") then your actions will ultimatly become unjust. For example, there is no functionality in the principle "all men are equal" and if one is driven by functionality one would rather say "men with wealth and power are more worthy than men without". This would lead to one allowing french or belgians free passage but demands extra troublesome procedures from Tanzanians. This is discrimatory to me, and goes against common sense morality. If libertarianism is an ideology that does not have any principal problems with discrimination then libertarianism is an ideology of fail.
And no, its not a science, stop trying to put a bow on the pig, it wont do any good.