French star sparks row with 'Nazi-style' salute

[The Straight Story]

French star sparks row with 'Nazi-style' salute


French footballer Nicolas Anelka triggered controversy on Saturday when he made a post-goal gesture many interpret to be a modified 'Nazi-style' salute.

The 34-year-old striker thrust his straightened right arm downwards while tapping his bicep with the other hand after scoring a goal in a game in Britain between his West Bromwich Albion team and West Ham United.

The gesture -- an imitation of a salute frequently used by a French comedian friend of Anelka's who has been convicted several times for anti-Semitic public comments -- was immediately and widely condemned.

France's sports minister, Valerie Fourneyron, called it a "shocking, sickening provocation" and said there is "no place for anti-Semitism and inciting hatred on the football pitch".

British media reported that the Football Association was investigating the incident, while the European Jewish Congress demanded English Premier League officials ban Anelka.

http://www.thelocal.fr/20131229/french-star-sparks-row-with-nazi-style-salute

[dipsydoodle]

1. Pop concert in Washington

[MrScorpio]

2. They're all holding smartphones… nt

[Codeine]

55. You're beyond goddamned ridiculous at this point. nt

[dipsydoodle]

66. Which doesn't change the fact

that at such event if you're going hold one arm up for a while you'll support it with the other.

I wasn't suggesting the concert fans mimic Nazis - just there arm positions in context with the subject of the OP.

[Ranchemp.]

67. What????????????

If you hold a camera phone up to take a pic, your supporting the Neo Nazi's?
Please tell me I mis-interpreted what you posted.

[dipsydoodle]

71. Don't try and tell me they were all holding 'phones

The arm raising at concerts started long before smartphones anyway.

Its arms I meant : not phones.

[Ranchemp.]

75. Really? You call those Neo Nazi salutes?

You've really gone off the deep end. None of those are any where near a Nazi salute.

[dipsydoodle]

78. I don't regard the subject of the OP being so either.

[Ranchemp.]

79. Fair point,

I don't regard him doing a Nazi salute either.

[Iggo]

145. Read the article.

[Codeine]

98. That's because you don't know anything about "la quenelle" or the people

with whom Anelka associates.

[kiva]

144. If you read the article,

and the related link to the 'comedian' you'll see that is precisely that.

[dipsydoodle]

148. At least read elsewhere too on the subject.

Soon as the elbow is bent it becomes "up yours" which has been common across Europe the whole of living memory.

[jessie04]

3. Dumbs#*t.

Lol...he thinks Jews are his problem ?

Wait a few years when your beloved France will be an old memory.

[a la izquierda]

93. What the hell is this:

Wait a few years when your beloved France will be an old memory.

supposed to mean?

You know, just curious.

[Scootaloo]

103. JihadWatch Jessie is a proponent of the "Eurabia" horseshit

[a la izquierda]

104. Oh FFS.

Nice little group of conspiracists and right wingers

[KansDem]

4. Am I missing something?

[font size="1"]Nicolas Anelka gestures after scoring for West Brom against West Ham on December 28th 2013. AFP Photo [font size="2"]

It looks like he's scratching his right shoulder.

[hack89]

6. It is a modified Nazi saluted adopted by neo-Nazis across Europe

Everyone of my European friends immediately knew what it was.

[KansDem]

8. Thanks for the explanation

I was expecting the "ol' standard."

[El_Johns]

113. Europe has black neo-Nazis?

[hack89]

138. Anti-semitism is color blind. nt

[El_Johns]

139. Nazi ideology is not limited to anti-semitism.

Just found a picture -- the comedian he is emulating is also black apparently.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/29/french-comedian-nicolas-anelka-ban-dieudonne

Dieudonné has popularised the gesture, known in French as the quenelle, although he denies that it is antisemitic and racist. He claims that the salute, which combines a downward Nazi salute with an obscene gesture meaning "up yours", is anti-establishment. Anelka, who made the gesture on Saturday after scoring a goal for West Bromwich Albion in a match broadcast on French television, is being investigated by the Football Association and his gesture triggered a furious reaction in France...

Dieudonné, whose father was from Cameroon, has seen his popularity ebb and flow during a long career as standup comedian, actor and would-be politician. He originally took a stand against the National Front, and threatened to run for the French presidency, before switching sides. He founded the Anti-Zionist Movement, which fielded candidates in the 2009 European elections.


If the salute is neo-Nazi it's endorsement by black media figures surprises me.

[hack89]

140. It is widely viewed as anti-semitic

take it up with all those offended Europeans if you disagree - I don't care that much.

[KansDem]

142. I had to laugh...

Later on today I remembered the final scene from "The Searchers"

[etherealtruth]

143. thank you ... I had no idea n/t

[MADem]

53. Does not the bruddah realize that Adolph would send him to camp first?

Adolph wasn't into swirling, and there'd be no hiding that genetic code...

Not too smart! Maybe he's an argument for helmets in 'football' across the ocean!

[treestar]

127. +1

What would a black Frenchman have against Jews.

Maybe he's Islamic and it stems from anti Israel feelings.

[Shankapotomus]

5. As far as the U.S. goes

I think there should be a federal law that anyone who publicly admits, under formal questioning, to racism should be stripped of their citizenship and exported and only allowed back in when they've publicly renounced their racism.

That would put a stop to offensive public displays of racism real fast.

It still allows you to believe what you want, just not here and not in the faces of your targets and not with the protection of your government.

[anti partisan]

7. As a Jew I strongly oppose that idea

Free speech is paramount to a democratic society, and must be preserved. That means no exceptions, even for detestable opinions like racism. Inciting violence is a much, much different story though.

The last thing we need is Big Brother telling us what we can or cannot say. Once we start down that slippery slope, there's no telling where it'll take us. Preserve the 1st Amendment.

[Shankapotomus]

9. Pronouncements of racism

are not the same as any other speech. It is literally condoning the belief that some ethnicities are biologically inferior. It is not the same as just being a theist or an atheist, who both only contend that their protagonist is merely wrong or misguided.

Racism is a totally reprehensible and irrevocably divisive belief since it totally rules out any possibility of further unity and cooperation between groups. It undermines the very fabric of the UNITED States. People who believe another ethnicity is inferior can never be united with them for anything. It defeats the entire purpose of the experiment that is our nation.

And again, such a law does not prevent racists from publicly holding their beliefs in other countries or starting their own country if they want.

And also again, publicly avowed racists would have plenty of opportunity to deny their racism under a formal inquiry and prevent their expulsion.

And lastly, such a law is hardly as damaging as the specter of racism freely hanging over a nation. If we truly are attempting to be a united society, there should be formal laws against the public expression of beliefs that attempt to dissolve that unity at such a basic and unalterable level as someone's ethnicity.

[anti partisan]

10. I know where you're coming from but I'm going to have to strongly disagree (nt)

[Shankapotomus]

13. Fair enough

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 11:32 AM - Edit history (1)

But I'd like to ask you to contemplate one more scenario.

Supposing you're right and racists should be allowed to express their racism publicly. Now suppose you are a newly married interracial couple. You've both had a traumatic past involving racism and bigotry. You now want to get away from all that. Where do you go?

We know where the racist's go thanks to tolerance of them. If racist's want to bother and taunt people of other ethnicity, they can pick and choose where to go to do it.

But if you are that couple that wants to get away from all that, where do you go?

[Ranchemp.]

11. No.

Ever heard the term "Slippery Slope"?

[anti partisan]

12. There's also a certain mentality among anti-Semites...

that hate speech laws in certain places in Western countries exist as a product of "Jewish control", and thus the hate speech laws ironically help fuel a different sort of blind hostility toward Jews.

I would rather people be more open with their hate so that they can hopefully be led in a different direction through open discussion. It may be a bit utopian of me to feel that hate will eventually fade away in an open free speech society, but I have hope that it will at least progress in a positive direction.

[Ranchemp.]

14. I fully agree,

the way to counter hate speech is with dialog, not passing laws that would strip a person of their citizenship and deporting them until they see the error of their ways.

Passing a law that bans hate speech is a path we don't want to go down, it would just lead to more and more restrictions on our 1st Amendment right.

[Shankapotomus]

16. It is Utopian of you

considering how successful allowing murder would be for preventing its propagation.

[anti partisan]

17. There's no reason why hate speech and murder should be paralleled

Different phenomenons with different root causes.

[Ranchemp.]

19. It's a better path to take than yours.

[Shankapotomus]

21. Is not. nt

[Ranchemp.]

22. So you would ban "hate speech", which could be interpreted by whatever

party is in power at the time, and strip any offender of their citizenship and deport them until they saw the error of their ways?
You would willingly weaken the 1A?
Are you sure you're in the right place?

[Shankapotomus]

25. You would give preference

to racists over minorities, interracial couples and people of ethnicity?

As for weakening the 1A, there would have to be restrictions in place saying it could not be applied to anything but publicly avowed racism.

[Ranchemp.]

28. I give preference to the right of anyone to say what they want,

It's not giving preference to anybody, it's giving preference to all to say what they want.
I deplore hateful speech, but I will always defend the right to say it.

As for weakening the 1A, there would have to be restrictions in place saying it could not be applied to anything but publicly avowed racism.

Riiiiiiiiiight. How well has restrictions worked out with the Patriot Act?
You really want to trust the Republicans with something like that when and if they get back in power?

[Shankapotomus]

32. Valid point

But still, if you don't institute formal societal sanctions against racism, it just gets bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger and more confident until you're engaged in a full scale world war against them. Social pressure doesn't do it. There has to be legally recognized and supported sanctions against publicly avowed racism if it is ever to be evolved out of us.

[MADem]

58. It's not "preference"--and they'd know it when their bullshit was answered by excoriation in the

public square.

Here, since you're unclear on the concept, this is how we do it:

[Shankapotomus]

63. HaHa!

It's no doubt fun laughing at institutionalized hate and I wouldn't begrudge anyone taking the opportunity.

But it shouldn't have to be fought out in the town square. It should be a given that public racist speech is unacceptable in our society. People should not have the right to try to convince or indoctrinate others to be racist through speech. That's my view and I'm sticking to it.

Because after a while the fun turns to this:



Hate indoctrination is nothing but a numbers game the images only get worse the longer racist speech is tolerated.

[Ranchemp.]

64. Hate speech in the U.S. has been around since the creation of the union,

and guess what? We've dealt with it without eroding our 1A rights, as will happen in the future.
Leave the 1A alone, what you propose is unconstitutional, extreme, and downright RW.

[Shankapotomus]

18. There's two sides to every "slope"

The question is which side you want to slip down.

[Ranchemp.]

20. Not yours!!!!!

[Shankapotomus]

26. No, not mine.

Just Rand Paul's.

[Ranchemp.]

29. And there it is,

the Rand Paul reference, I was wondering how long it would take to bring that up.

[Shankapotomus]

30. To be fair

I was accused of undermining the 1A first.

[Ranchemp.]

31. To be fair,

what you were suggesting would be undermining the 1A.

[Shankapotomus]

33. Well yea but

only a little. Jhez. gosh.

[Ranchemp.]

35. And only a little would lead to a little bit more

and a little bit more until we no longer have a recognizable 1A.

No, the way to counter any hate speech, whether it be racist, anti-gay, whatever, is with counter speech, it's worked well for over 200 years, no reason to modify it to make certain speech illegal.

[Shankapotomus]

37. Look

We can't have these bozos white-thrashing up the country. Forget about the racist component. The esthetic threat of confederate flags, trailer parks and rusty pickups alone is terrifying. What will the Europeans think???

Something must be done.

[Ranchemp.]

39. Who gives a damn what the Europeans think?

If you attempt to outlaw certain speech, then you've started down that slippery slope of censorship, which would only end up destroying the 1A.
NO THANKS, I vote to keep the 1A as it is, and I'll bet if you took a poll, you would be in the tiny minority of people who want to outlaw certain speech.

[Packerowner740]

97. Wtf is "white-thrashing"?

And what do trailer parks and rusted pickups have to do with anything? Not everyone can afford a fifth ave condo and BMW like you.

[Shankapotomus]

99. It was a joke

I agree.

P.S. I don't own a car.

[Shankapotomus]

40. Yes but it's not that reliable a solution

Theoretically, under the 1rst Amendment, racists can be encouraged, outnumber non-racists, win over a majority (as in Nazi Germany) just with speech and eventually take over the country. Hitler, primarily, did all that with words.

[Ranchemp.]

42. And we're not Nazi Germany

or any where close to Nazi Germany.

[Shankapotomus]

43. Yes but only by sheer luck

If the conditions were otherwise there would be equally a s little to prevent it here as there was in Germany at the time.

[Shankapotomus]

34. And for a really good cause. nt

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

15. That would certainly put an end ...

... to all intelligent discourse on the subject.

I deny everything.

[LittleBlue]

23. Thankfully we have the 1st Amendment

so we need never worry about your proposal ever becoming reality.

[Ranchemp.]

24. +1000.

[Shankapotomus]

27. Suit yourself

but when racists take the first amendment as an allowance to get louder and louder and undermine everyone's quality of life, don't come crying to me.

Well, you can come crying to me, I'm a forgiving person, but not within the next 24hrs. I'm pretty mad.

[mountain grammy]

36. There are laws agains "hate crimes" and discrimination in public venues is "illegal"

as there should be. I hear what you're saying, and American racists did attempt to form their "own country" when they seceded from the United States in 1861. The United States fought a war to prevent them from doing it.
Slavery and genocide spoiled America and we haven't recovered yet.
Those who think your views are too extreme need to understand that racism becomes incarceration, slavery and genocide. It's the natural progression of racism. At what point do we stop it?

[Shankapotomus]

38. "The United States fought a war to prevent them from doing it. "

Which, incidentally, was a HUGE mistake. HUGE.

[mountain grammy]

46. Oh, I've said that so many times.. but then I think of the lives of African Americans

from the time they were kidnapped from their native land and crammed onto slave ships to lives as American slaves. This was an abomination of massive proportions that had to stop. Before the Civil War, Americans had nearly annihilated the indigenous population because they didn't make such "good slaves" having already been here and free and all. It was easier to kill the Indians and bring the Africans over in chains.

Man's inhumanity to man begins with racism.

[Ranchemp.]

41. Yes, there are laws against hate crimes and discrimination,

but not against hate speech, and I would vehemently oppose any laws restricting the free speech.

[treestar]

44. So what, they are just talking

and can be answered.

[Shankapotomus]

45. Hitler was just talking. nt

[Ranchemp.]

47. Germany didn't have the protection of a BoR then,

and to try to compare the U.S. now to Nazi Germany back then is pretty offensive.

[Shankapotomus]

49. Not comparing it to Nazi Germany but

Pre - Nazi Germany

[Ranchemp.]

51. Ok,

pre-Nazi Germany didn't have the protection of the BoR.

[treestar]

57. And nobody had to listen

He could have been locked up in an insane asylum. It was the German People who chose to make him a leader rather than doing so.

And Hitler was arrested and put in jail, giving him a chance to play martyr.

[Iggo]

50. Nope.

[Shankapotomus]

54. It's not like racist speech

is ever going to come in handy so don't punish it. I guess you never know when you're going to need it.

[eqfan592]

69. What.....what the fuck?

Those who respect the first amendment only do so because they may want to use racist speech at some point? That's effectively the argument you're making.

What you propose is not only dangerous, it's also completely ineffective.

You've gone way beyond the pale on this.

[Shankapotomus]

72. Not at all

I'm just saying people who publicly proclaim their racism are taking advantage of the 1rst Amendment. I may be controversial but I'm not crazy.

[Ranchemp.]

77. Taking advantage of the 1A?

This is EXACTLY why the Founding Fathers wrote the 1A, to protect controversial speech.

[Captain Stern]

52. At least three problems with this.

1) It's unconstitutional

2) Racists could still pretty much say whatever they'd like to, and then deny racism under formal questioning.

3) Deport them to where? Are there a lot of countries out there that want people that we are forcibly deporting?

[Shankapotomus]

59. I will grant you #1

2) Yes. But the point is to shut down public expression of racism. They won't be able to repeatedly offend and then deny it every time under formal questioning.

and

3) It will not be the United States government responsibility to find them a new homeland. They will be given a time limit to find a new country for themselves and expected to leave by then.

[Captain Stern]

61. Find a new country.......or else what?

What if they don't find a new country to move to within the time limit?

[Ranchemp.]

62. And if they don't find a new country in the allotted time?

Then what? Prison? Death? What?

You're dangerously close to sounding just like those hate mongers who would deport "undesireables".
Maybe you should take a step back and rethink this, you know, just sayin.

[Shankapotomus]

68. In that case,

I would suggest the government send out relocation applications for them. Or even obtain them a visitor visa (or whatever they are called) and then revoke citizenship while they are away. Then, even though they haven't found a country, they can't return to the U.S. I won't lose sleep if some racist has to spend the rest of his life in an airport because they won't publicly renounce their racism. Good.

[Ranchemp.]

74. Suppose the "applicant" refuses to bow down to the govt.?

What then? Prison? Death?
This is all a moot point anyway, no court in the land would EVER rule what you suggest, is constitutional, and that is a good thing.

[Shankapotomus]

81. Well, of course, the constitution

would have to be amended.

And again, in the case of resistance, the applicant's bags (and let's not forget the "applicant" is an avowed racist) would be packed, their flight booked, their visa obtained, their person escorted to a plane in handcuffs and accompanied the entire flight by guards and they would be dropped off in the designated country (it doesn't matter where) for a "vacation." While on "vacation", their citizenship would be revoked (along with their right to travel within the United States) and they wouldn't be allowed back into the states once their vacation visa expired. After that, their refugee status is not our problem. They're avowed racists. They could wander the rest of their life in airports for all I care. Of course, their free to apply for entry into any other country, if they wish. Including reentry into the United States, if they will publicly renounce racism and not re-offend.

I think I'm being very nice considering they are avowed racists.

[tritsofme]

83. What other thoughtcrimes are eligible for this treatment?

Why reserve it for one class of scum? We can cleanse our nation of all the undesirables, where do we start?

[Shankapotomus]

84. You can think want you want

and everyone else could express what they want. I am specifically challenging the public expression of racism. And most importantly, the repeated expression and advocacy of avowed racism. You would be given opportunity to clarify yourself and to renounce your statements. Specifically, this pertains to publicly avowed racism with a record of recidivism.

[tritsofme]

85. But if you're in power I better not state it publicly

Or you might wake up one day and send me on a permanent "vacation"

Your whole idea is sick and antithetical to all traditions of American self government.

[Shankapotomus]

87. Antithetical to all traditions of American self government.

Maybe. Sick. I don't think so. I think racism is pretty sick.

[Ranchemp.]

89. Racism is sick, no one here is denying that,

but what you're suggesting is even sicker.

[Shankapotomus]

90. Stopping racists

from expressing their racism is sicker than tolerating that expression? Are you sure?

[Ranchemp.]

94. You better believe that I'm sure of that.

You're wanting to destroy the fundamental right of Americans to free expression of their views, no matter how repugnant they are. That would put you in the camp of the T-baggers.

[tritsofme]

95. Obviously freedom is better. You have a cowardly mindset.

Banning opponents instead of facing them in the court of public opinions.

[Shankapotomus]

96. Muderers are opponents too

I don't see you complaining about outlawing murder. Or perhaps you regard racism as nothing like murder. Just a minor disagreement?

[tritsofme]

100. Yes, I think words are infinitely different than killing someone.

Not even apples and oranges territory.

Why not just outlaw the Republican Party and deport all conservatives? If meeting racists in the public square is a waste of time, why even bother with all this politics stuff?

[Shankapotomus]

101. Do you not see the fundamental difference

between hate speech directed at ideology and hate speech directed at biology?

If it's hate speech directed who you fundamentally are at your most basic level, you can't avoid it. You can't run from it. You can't hide from it. You can't change it. You can't even reason with it (if it were even possible).

Racism is not hating you for your thoughts. It's hating you for your presence. It's hating you for your existence. I challenge that that is speech.

I maintain racist hate speech is an action the same as disturbing the peace is only far worse.

[tritsofme]

105. Under the law there is no difference.

There are consequences outside of the law, it should be made clear that racism will not be tolerated by polite society.

Though I absolutely reject the idea that you cannot change or reason with racists. Through my life I have seen countless people change their ways, feel shame, and seek atonement for past racist actions.

Many people were raised to believe very stupid things, they need education not a deportation notice. The racists that don't care to change are dying off, and if you haven't noticed, are already losing this argument, badly. Evidenced most brightly by the gentleman who today sits in the Oval Office. This is a struggle we are winning, you don't need to destroy freedom to get there.

[tritsofme]

92. So do I. But I will defend to the death his right to say it.

Freedom can make people uncomfortable, it is also something worth dying for.

You are clearly blind to the implications of this plan and the horrible precedent it would set for dealing with society's undesirables. It would make me feel a lot better if you weren't being serious.

[Ranchemp.]

86. You're someone who doesn't understand our Constitution.

Apparently civics class didn't take hold in school.

And just who would escort this person in question in handcuffs to the plane? The U.S. Marshals Service? The FBI? Homeland Security? Local LE?
Do you really think that anyone of those would obey such an unconstitutional order?
And before you answer, bear in mind that I have much more knowledge on this than you probably do.

[Packerowner740]

102. And how many times do you think the US could get away with this "visa" trick

Before other countries refuse to issues visas because of us dumping these undesirables on them?

[Shankapotomus]

107. You can't have both sides of the argument

You can't claim other countries would be correct to actively refuse admission to visitors based on the fact of their avowed racism and then claim it would be incorrect for us to deport them for it.

If they are "undesirables" (and i agree they are) why should we be expected to put up with them either? Somehow I'm comiting a crime by contemplating their deportation but other countries are completely rational in refusing them.

[Packerowner740]

110. I should have put "undesireables" in quotations, that is what you are labeling them

And the other countries would stop admitting them because of the US pulling their citizenship and leaving them stranded in another country with no place to live, no job, probably little or no money and to just become a drain on their government. Yeah, you think the world hated us after bush and his wars? Try this one out and find out what hate really is.

Are you sure you really don't write fore the onion?

[Shankapotomus]

114. As I initially alluded

There would be an allotted relocation before the serious measures would be taken. But the point is, they would be required to eventually leave which would reinforce anti-racist societal norms rather than tolerance of racist speech we have now.

[arcane1]

112. Someone else used to move "undesirables" out of the way, based on their beliefs n/t

[Shankapotomus]

115. It's really not based on their beliefs

It's the effect it has on society. I'm sure many here have been the target of public racist speech. It doesn't feel like speech. It feels like a physical attack on your body. It's a complete denial and extinguishing of you as a human being.

If a republican or a theist disagrees with me they are not canceling me out as a person. they are just challenging my accepted beliefs. Not who I am and can only be.

[arcane1]

116. It is based on their beliefs.

You said yourself that people would be formally questioned, by government agents, about their beliefs.

I would hate to live in that country.

[Shankapotomus]

117. Is it possible I hate racism too much?

I guess I really don't care what happens to them.

[tritsofme]

118. Replace "racism" with "liberalism"

And you've created an interesting blueprint for a President Cruz.

But I will mention, that dehumanizing your opponents is another step in your plans that teeter on genocide advocacy.

[Shankapotomus]

120. Well, I accept DU's rebuke

And will ponder this thrashing. It is possible I don't have a handle on the importance of unfettered speech.

But I have to admit I don't know how denying jobs and housing based on racism is illegal but publicly expression hatred of others based on race is legal.

[Ranchemp.]

123. Because freedom of speech has absolutely nothing to do with

Last edited Sun Dec 29, 2013, 09:39 PM - Edit history (1)

denying jobs or housing based on ethenticity. It is the right to freely express your views without fear of govt. reprisals, which you have advocated.

[Ranchemp.]

121. What you seem to hate is the freedom of speech that Americans enjoy,

which includes racist speech, but the FF's included the 1A just for that specific purpose, what's really sad here is, that you can't see that your just like those racists when it comes to free speech.

Perhaps you'd be more comfortable at one of the freeper sites, they espouse the same principles as you do.

[Shankapotomus]

125. Wow, you're really pissed at me

That one hurt. Ouch.

[Ranchemp.]

126. What I'm pissed at is the fact that you don't seem to realize that what you

propose goes against everything this country stands for, and what I fought for and dedicated my career to.

[Shankapotomus]

128. Yea, but to resign me to the Freepers?

It's not like I'm going around saying liberals should be deported.

[Ranchemp.]

130. Because you are proposing what freepers would like to do to us.

And what makes you think that once repubs get back in power, and bear in mind that it will eventually happen, would'nt expand the law to include those that don't think like them?

[Shankapotomus]

133. Well for one

I would think Republicans just wouldn't have the same argument against atheists and the LGBT community and socialists as we have against racists.

But I'm starting to see your fear. Republicans would not be as precise and nuanced as we would with a law like that.

Perhaps my mistake is thinking everyone would be as careful and exact wielding such power as I envisioned they should be.

[Ranchemp.]

137. Repubs have made it very clear what they would like to do

with those that don't think like they do and I have no doubt that they would carry out those desires if and when they ever regain power if a law like what you propose were in place.

[cherokeeprogressive]

149. "Well, of course, the constitution would have to be amended."

And with that, your insanely stupid idea comes to a screeching halt. Falls flat on its ugly face if you will.

You see, Americans aren't quite as stupid as you think.

And I did take note of your small c constitution.

[tritsofme]

76. You are an authoritarian.

I really hope your tongue is planted firmy in cheek with this thread.

Deportation of natural born citizens for thoughtcrimes? This is some scary stuff.

[Shankapotomus]

82. No I'm not

And it's not a thought crime. You can think anything you want. It's specifically public expressions of racism that I am challenging.

[tritsofme]

88. If you don't think you are espousing classic authoritarian

sentiment here, you are simply not familiar with the term.

[Ranchemp.]

91. And in the wrong place.

Those persons views are more consistent with the freepers.

[arcane1]

109. Indeed, it's the most absurd series of posts I've seen on DU in a long time.

The poster doesn't seem to realize that their proposal is more nazi-like than what they are trying to prevent.

Education just isn't what it used to be

[treestar]

132. No other country is bound to take these racists

And give them a new home. In fact where would they be wanted? Your proposal is not only unconstitutional but impossible.

[Shankapotomus]

135. Where would they be wanted?

Apparently here. Rofl.

[treestar]

131. The word used in the first post was

"Export". So maybe we get money for them. That will help with trade imbalances. Lol.

[Codeine]

56. Yeah, no. But thanks for playing. nt

[MADem]

60. "Exported?" To where would you export them?

Gitmo?

And who, pray tell, would do this "formal questioning?" The Anti-Racial Gestapo?

Why do you think any other nation would welcome our trash?

You plainly didn't think that one through.

Either that, or you're playing a too-clever-by-half game.

[Shankapotomus]

65. I'm sorry, I meant "deported"

As far as deporting: It will not be the United States government responsibility to find them a new homeland. They will be given a time limit to find a new country for themselves and expected to leave by then.

"Why do you think any other nation would welcome our trash? "

Ah, so if you admit a person's publicly avowed racism is a valid reason to deny them entry into another country, why would it be so extreme to deport they for it?

[Ranchemp.]

70. So, I'll ask again,

what happens if they can't find a country to accept them in your allotted time? Will it be prison? The death penalty? What?

[Shankapotomus]

73. I answered

No prison. We pack their bags, send them on vacation and don't let them back in. They can figure out their refuge problem without us.

Wow. I'm really generating a lot of heat on this issue. Which is fine. I feel prepared for it.

[Ranchemp.]

80. You're generating alot of heat because you're advocating

a position that goes against the Constitution, and a majority of what Americans believe, and yours is a RW position.

[Shankapotomus]

108. Yea, I'm a right wing ideologue

DIE, HIPPIE TROLL! DIE! ROFL!

Get a grip. It's not like admitted racist are human. rotf. (sigh, just kidding)

Seriously, the founding fathers were kind of a bunch of a-holes so I am suspect of the infallibility of their "constitution."

[Scootaloo]

106. Send them WHERE, exactly, is the question you are being asked.

And I'm curious as well. Where would you deport racists to? You need a destination for deportation, after all.

[Shankapotomus]

111. I've answered this about twice but

anywhere will do. Obtain them vacation visa's and drop them off. If it is so reprehensible to do this to your racist citizens I'm sure other countries will have no problem admitting them.

[Ranchemp.]

119. What other countries are going to take our "undesireables"?

And for that matter, you are, in my eyes, and the majority of Americans, "undesireable" for your unconstitutional views, so, go get a visa and self deport.
I guess that you failed your civics class in school.

[Shankapotomus]

122. Seriously, that last is quite possible

I missed a lot of school early in life.

[Ranchemp.]

124. Well, then I would suggest that you take an online civics course,

and learn more about our Constitution and BoR and how our govt is supposed to work.

[Iggo]

48. lol...nazis.

[Mosby]

129. Quasi-Nazi salute popular in France

Quasi-Nazi salute popular in France

-snip-

The quenelle is of a piece with Dieudonne’s coining of the term “shoananas,” a mashup of the Hebrew word for Holocaust and the French word for pineapple that is seen as a safe way to suggest the Holocaust is a myth while not running afoul of French laws prohibiting Holocaust denial. Dieudonne fans have taken to performing the quenelle next to pineapples.

The quenelle’s popularity has soared in France. Hundreds of quenelle photos can be found in anti-Semitic forums and on Facebook, with quenelles performed at Jewish sites and at Nazi concentration camps especially popular. But while civil servants may face disciplinary action over the quenelle, civilians may perform it with impunity.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024240928

[Mosby]

136. Photos of the quenelle

Quenelle at the Western Wall



Quenelle in front of an Anne Frank poster


Quenelle outside Auschwitz

[jessie04]

141. It's good to see anti-semitism is a thing of past.

[Drunken Irishman]

146. Now that I see context to it - yeah, that looks like a Nazi salute he's doing.

Disgusting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

150. Thanks for the background - that makes the intent behind it clear

and since Anelka does admit he meant it as the gesture the comedian popularized, he doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.

[Dirty Socialist]

134. Anelka Is Black

Nazis hate him, too. WTF is he thinking???

[Kurska]

147. Hey I thought only white people could be racist.

[Tanuki]

151. Now Tony Parker......

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/basketball/spurs-parker-fire-anti-semitic-quenelle-gesture-article-1.1561092
(picture at link)