The straight white male is the most discriminated person in America.

You're missing the point of my grocery bagger example. The point was that, where there are real-world, practical problems, there is no question that illegal immigration is a problem. The problem is evident enough in the budgets of municipalities and the states. Your grocery bagger not speaking english very well is not a real-world, practical problem. You consider it indicative of larger problems, but they really have nothing to do with anything larger besides your desire to hear fluent english everywhere you go. The seed of that discontent is based in racist, xenophobic belief. All those problems you mentioned, from free health care to living in exceedingly large numbers, are all issues in border states. Few people would argue with you there. I certainly wouldn't. But it's when you confuse the two-the budget problems of the border states and the distain for a non-english speaker bagging your groceries-is when the rest of America looks at you as a racist and criticizes you accordingly. Keep your arguments based in real-world terms, such a budget shortfalls and benefits that not even citizens receive, and you shouldn't have a problem. But making such broad generalizations like you did in your last argument, while not even bothering to think that many of the problems you mention only apply to a small number of illegals or take into account the ways in which our country benefits from them, and you become deserving of the criticism you hate so much. Those of us who can make those distinctions (liberals) don't get the labels and hatred that afflicts those who keep making baseless generalizations (conservatives). No wonder hispanics support liberal Democrats. Thank you for recognizing the split between conservatives and liberals in the level of hatred they receive. It shows that you agree with my position that not all white men are hated, like you say, which proves my argument that your debate topic is false. Therefore, I win this debate. But regarding what you said in your argument...I am really getting tired of people coming on this site and trying to claim all sorts of revisionist versions of political history without any knowledge whatsoever of how the parties have evolved. The fact of the matter is that the parties have switched on a number of issues between now and when they were founded. The Democrats were originally formed to keep government small and to promote state's rights. The Republicans were originally created to represent the North in its desire to end or contain slavery, as well as use the government to advance their business interests through tariffs... how much as changed indeed. But your inability to recognize how the parties have dramatically changed over time is sad and a disgrace to whoever your history teacher was. Parties have changed, but ideologies have remained the same. The same conservative and liberal beliefs are pretty much still in existence now, but the party that represents them have changed. It was conservatives that wanted to uphold slavery while liberals that wanted to end it. It was conservatives that threw out Reconstructionist policies in favor of Jim Crow. It was conservatives that insisted that there weren't enough soldiers in the army to get the south to integrate their churches, their pools, their schools, etc. (channeling Strom Thurmond here, who left the Democratic party to start his Segregationist party in 1947 as a response to Truman desegregating the military, and later joined the Republicans). It was conservatives that fought against Brown v. Board and the Civil and Voting Rights Acts (both passed by LBJ, a Democrat). It was conservatives that fought against the ERA and its conservatives that continue to fight against equal rights for homosexuals. It's no small wonder why conservatives are so hated by everyone who isn't a straight, white male. For you not to understand the difference between a Democrat and a Dixiecrat in the 1950s is just disgraceful. Your not understanding how the South became solidly Republican after the passage of the Civil and Voting Rights acts is equally disheartening. It is Republicans that have former Grand Dragons of the KKK run for office, and have people like James Dobson and Pat Robertson amongst their ranks. Liberals, represented by Democrats, integrated the military, brought Brown v. Board to the Supreme Court, passed the Civil Rights Acts, tried to pass the ERA and continue to work for equal rights for homosexuals. Clearly, your assertion that Democrats do nothing for everyone who isn't white is about as unfounded as you can get. Please go educate yourself on American political development before you start your next round, and don't get your lessons from Rush Limbaugh. Liberals don't have a problem with blacks and hispanics taking pride in their heritage because, being the minority, their cultural flavor gets drowned out if they don't keep it up. We understand this. As white men, we don't have to promote white culture because the entire country reflects it already. We are the majority. We have and continue to run the show in this country. What extra help do we need to keep our identity? The idea that our identity is in danger in any way is ridiculous. For this reason, and all the reasons I listed above, liberals and the rest of minority America have every right to disparage and "hate" conservatives as fervently as they wish. Unfortunately for your argument, the majority of them are too concerned with everyday issues and divisions amongst themselves to be concerned with hating on you, as mentioned in my prior rounds. Aside from his mistakes with Monica Lewinski, Bill Clinton is what a good politician should be. What, would you prefer white males to emulate Mark Foley, Ted Haggard, Strom Thurmond or Larry Craig? Do you really have a problem with a man that actually is concerned with paying the country's bills by taxing those who can afford to foot the bill? Sure, he screwed up with Lewinski, but at least SHE was older than 18, and no one died when he mislead about it either. But I digress.