How Do We Fix Race Relations?

[Agravan]

How Do We Fix Race Relations? By Jeffrey T. Brown (http://www.americanthinker.com/jeffrey_t_brown/)
Many serious Americans are distressed by what they see going presently regarding matters of race. They are perplexed by the obvious anger and hatred directed by some against others, including examples of random people being beaten in various places following the Zimmerman verdict, "for Trayvon". They see entertainers boycott an entire state because of what the entertainers absurdly claim is racism, the result of a verdict in a grossly manipulated case in which the black "victim" purposefully initiated a beating on the "cracka" who then shot him. The jury wasn't fooled. The system worked, even if the malcontents did not get the result their prejudices demanded.
These tens of millions of serious Americans live good, decent, non-racist lives. They have been willing participants in the social reformation of our country, from what it was up to the 1960's, to what it is now. They embraced the message of Dr. King, and happily placed content of character over skin color, not because it would be risking wide-scale disapproval not to, but because it was right.
But these days, every time they turn on the television, it is as if the world they live in is a lie, and only white racism exists. Nor is this new. In fact, after so many cases of fabricated evidence and faked outrage, championed by the same pathetic cadre of pathological liars, many have begun to question exactly what process they have been part of for the last 50 years. Some have become disillusioned, realizing just how far apart the races have become despite their sincere efforts and intentions. Didn't everyone want the same thing? Wasn't this all supposed to be about equality?
The answer, quite obviously now, is "no". Everyone did not want the same thing, and the last 50 years have not been about equality. They have been about division, and the deliberate and heartless consolidation of power by American liberals at the expense of our black citizens.
If the question is, 'How can we fix race relations?' there is a simple answer. We can't. We who believe in equality didn't break the contract. We have never been welcome in the "national discussion" the left pretends to want because we are not willing to play their game. Our part, as seen by the left, is to endlessly admit to sins we have never committed, and to pay for those sins in whatever way liberal agitators demand. Honest people have come to understand that truth is not welcome in this discussion. Our role is to accept blame, show repentance, and pay up. Those who do not accept this role are falsely accused of wishing to perpetuate oppression that they neither practice nor see practiced by others like them.
It seems fair to say that we cannot solve what neither side can agree is occurring. Whites are not committing wholesale acts of racism, so conservatives, at least, cannot admit to this without lying. Because that is true, and because our country has made enormous strides in social enlightenment and in outlawing the vestiges of discrimination, blacks are not actually pursuing equality, and neither are their political representatives. That has already been achieved. For those who doubt this, remind yourself that we have a black president, an impossibility in a racist country.
Race relations in America now are purely about pursuing personal power, political power and votes. Those decrying a racism that has been almost entirely vanquished are pursuing nothing more than an advantage, which they represent as something to which they are entitled by prior discrimination. The entire purpose of punishing some for the presumed sins of others is to gain unjust leverage and power. Those being punished, due entirely to their skin color and not their deeds, must admit out of assumed guilt to the alleged sins of others, while those imposing the punishment, due entirely to their skin color, have no moral standing and inherently know that the penitent is not the offender. What, other than power sought and power surrendered, can explain the pure perversion of this exercise?

This is where liberal whites come in so handy. Because they have bought the lies, they enable the race-baiters and hustlers to ply their trade without risk of that honest debate we keep hearing about. They are the Salem Witchcraft judges, relying on spectral evidence because the righteousness of those who accuse of the evil of their enemies is presumed, despite all contrary evidence. They are awash in an ideology that demands that they confess guilt and accept punishment for the invisible crimes of mythical "others". Somehow, they fail to ponder that they have not personally witnessed what the aggrieved claims is there because it is not occurring.
Ours is not a racist country. No matter how many times the president and his attorney general pretend they were profiled as young, successful men minding their own business and behaving perfectly appropriately, we are not a country of white racists. America, in general, is neither oppressive nor evil, despite the belief system of liberals. This truth is self-evident to every other foreigner who longs to come here and make his own way, and does so successfully. Indeed, no other racial group or nationality complains of the prejudice and bigotry supposedly leveled against blacks because they are not conditioned to see it in everything that happens in their lives. Still, someone must be committing the racist sins that the hustlers and profiteers constantly tell liberals are being committed around the clock, right?
We live in the same world as the liberals, don't we? Do you see wholesale racism, discrimination, oppression, and mistreatment committed by whites, particularly conservative whites, against blacks? I mean real racism, not just holding different opinions or believing in different things. If it was so pervasive, wouldn't the media be tripping over itself to show it to us? Society has been on notice for the last 50 years that racism is unacceptable, and whites have certainly gotten the message. Willingly so. The majority of the country did not and still does not commit racist acts because we have no interest in doing so, regardless of the laws. Racism is a character flaw reserved for the weak-minded.
It is also an ingrained part of the code of liberalism. Whether you are a white who willingly believes in the racism of other whites you don't know, based on their skin color and your own bigotry, or a black who believes in the racism of whites for the same reasons, you will find a welcome home on the left. However, in considering what to do about race right now, this is not our biggest problem.
The left fails at many things, but demagoguery and destruction are not on that long list. For a generation, the left has sown seeds of hatred and disinformation within black communities. They have lied to blacks about their potential. They have quashed or destroyed opportunity. They have devastated black family structure. They have discouraged success and achievement. They have encouraged separateness and isolation from the greater society, punishing the acceptance of the fruits of citizenship by equating it with "selling out". They have fostered the moral and societal deterioration that has led to rampant crime and poverty. They have conditioned blacks to utter dependency, and in the bargain the blacks have gained nothing while their "leaders" and politicians have stolen all.
As a direct consequence of the exploitation of America's blacks by liberalism, there is nothing left but protesting and agitating for the benefits of freedom that lie in plain sight before them, but which their leaders tell them they cannot have. They are not being kept down by the country. America did not do this to them. Conservatives did not do this to them. The left did this to them, and they did it by design.

When sitting down with the architects of this malignant destruction, where can we even begin to have an honest debate about race in the United States? The damage is now so deep that many who live it do not remember when it was not this way, nor do they demand their freedom from their masters. The transformation of blacks into political slaves has been achieved. The left will never throw away that weapon to save them.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/07/how_do_we_fix_race_relations.html

[jillian]

you start by not rooting for the white guy who killed an unarmed black kid like it's some type of white victory.

and by not having people on your senate staff who write white supremacist articles

you don't support voting laws that suppress minority vote

you don't high five people who compare immigrants to dogs.... or say that for every latino valdictorian there are 100 who have 'calves like bowling balls' from carrying 75 pound packages of pot across the border.

hint: if you don't understand why those things are offensive and turn off... well, almost everyone... then THAT is the reason you have problems with race relations.

[Matty]

You don't fix race relations. Liberals have too much invested in exploiting the issue and dividing the country.

[Agravan]

you start by not rooting for the white guy who killed an unarmed black kid like it's some type of white victory.

and by not having people on your senate staff who write white supremacist articles

you don't support voting laws that suppress minority vote

you don't high five people who compare immigrants to dogs.... or say that for every latino valdictorian there are 100 who have 'calves like bowling balls' from carrying 75 pound packages of pot across the border.

hint: if you don't understand why those things are offensive and turn off... well, almost everyone... then THAT is the reason you have problems with race relations.

NEWSFLASH, libtard. Not everyone on the right is white.

[Cigar]

How Do We Fix Race Relations? First admit there's a relation problem ... and if you don't believe me, read the post in this Forum.

[Chris]

you start by not rooting for the white guy who killed an unarmed black kid like it's some type of white victory.

and by not having people on your senate staff who write white supremacist articles

you don't support voting laws that suppress minority vote

you don't high five people who compare immigrants to dogs.... or say that for every latino valdictorian there are 100 who have 'calves like bowling balls' from carrying 75 pound packages of pot across the border.

hint: if you don't understand why those things are offensive and turn off... well, almost everyone... then THAT is the reason you have problems with race relations.

By not twisting everything to suit a racist agenda.

[lynn]

I find it rather disturbing that society has not matured yet to see that we are all the same species. Then I realized its not the general public that has a problem with race relations, it is the elected officials that represent their populations and have the power to make life difficult for those of different races that keeps them in poverty.

[Cigar]

NEWSFLASH, libtard. Not everyone on the right is white.

http://media.cagle.com/46/2013/03/20/128997_600.jpg

[Cigar]

I find it rather disturbing that society has not matured yet to see that we are all the same species. Then I realized its not the general public that has a problem with race relations, it is the elected officials that represent their populations and have the power to make life difficult for those of different races that keeps them in poverty.

One way or another Racism is a learned trait.

[Chris]

I find it rather disturbing that society has not matured yet to see that we are all the same species. Then I realized its not the general public that has a problem with race relations, it is the elected officials that represent their populations and have the power to make life difficult for those of different races that keeps them in poverty.

Like LBJ's war on poverty that has only increased the poverty rate?

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon B. Johnson

[Cigar]

Like LBJ's war on poverty that has only increased the poverty rate?

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon B. Johnson

I'll bet even longer ... with Hispanics and Women.

Soon, the Republican Tent will look like a wrinkled old smelly sausage factory.

Keep up the excellent work. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Remember those who laugh last.

[Chris]

I'll bet even longer ... with Hispanics and Women.

Soon, the Republican Tent will look like a wrinkled old smelly sausage factory.

Keep up the excellent work. :smiley_ROFLMAO:

Remember those who laugh last.

Proud of that legacy, aren't you.

[Ravi]

These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it.

[pragmatic]

Race relations have been getting better slowly for the last 50 years. Racial inequality issues around the world have a deep seated history. Takes time for that to all flush out.

Believe more and more interracial marriages are helping to accelerate the healing process. Which is a good thing...

[Cigar]

Proud of that legacy, aren't you.

Yep ... :wink:

[Chris]

These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it.

Where do you see that, marie, or just that great imagination again?

[Cigar]

Race relations have been getting better slowly for the last 50 years. Racial inequality issues around the world have a deep seated history. Takes time for that to all flush out.

Believe more and more interracial marriages are helping to accelerate the healing process. Which is a good thing...

I agree ... let the Dinosaurs die a slow and painful death.

[Chris]

Race relations have been getting better slowly for the last 50 years. Racial inequality issues around the world have a deep seated history. Takes time for that to all flush out.

Believe more and more interracial marriages are helping to accelerate the healing process. Which is a good thing...

Problem as I see it has less to do with race than it does racism.

[Cigar]

Where do you see that, marie, or just that great imagination again?

I see it in the US Demographics and Presidential Election results

[nic34]

Like LBJ's war on poverty that has only increased the poverty rate?

I've already shown on these fora the reduction in poverty rates for the elderly were significantly reduced by the introduction of Medicare.

[pragmatic]

Problem as I see it has less to do with race than it does racism.


Uuhhh, pretty sure that is the implied topic we are discussing. Racism...

[Cigar]

Problem as I see it has less to do with race than it does racism.

You're right!

http://www.si.edu/oeema/Diversity-Initiatives-photo.gif

[Chris]

These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it.


Where do you see that, marie, or just that great imagination again?


I see it in the US Demographics and Presidential Election results

She referred specifically to the OP in her inflammatory remarks. It's not in the OP.

[Chris]

Uuhhh, pretty sure that is the implied topic we are discussing. Racism...

Uh, yea. But some are trying to shift the topic to race.

[Dr. Who]

Like LBJ's war on poverty that has only increased the poverty rate?

“I’ll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years.” – Lyndon B. JohnsonL.B.J. came from the old style southern racist Democratic camp, but also being a very successful political opportunist, he championed equal rights in order to get votes and in particular to shift the black vote away from the GOP. There was nothing noble in his actions. In reaction to the Democratic championing of civil rights, the GOP went after the disenfranchised racist white vote. Hence the parties ultimately changed sides. LBJ's war on poverty was intended to get votes - I don't suppose he really cared about whether the outcome had a deleterious affect on the poor or whether he made a useful difference in the lives of black Americans. Fortunately the civil rights movement took on a life of its own. All politicians are ultimately opportunists who will promise whatever will get them elected and bring in programs that are half baked, compromised and lack foresight. Reactionary politics.

[patrickt]

These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it.

Really? It's the liberals who insist that blacks and Hispanics can't get a photo ID, can't get a job, can't have a life, without lying and cheating and stealing from Washington bureaucrats. But, people like you are, amazingly, stupid enough to fall for their rhetoric.

Racism will thrive as long as liberals need and benefit from racism.

[Chris]

L.B.J. came from the old style southern racist Democratic camp, but also being a very successful political opportunist, he championed equal rights in order to get votes and in particular to shift the black vote away from the GOP. There was nothing noble in his actions. In reaction to the Democratic championing of civil rights, the GOP went after the disenfranchised racist white vote. Hence the parties ultimately changed sides. LBJ's war on poverty was intended to get votes - I don't suppose he really cared about whether the outcome had a deleterious affect on the poor or whether he made a useful difference in the lives of black Americans. Fortunately the civil rights movement took on a life of its own. All politicians are ultimately opportunists who will promise whatever will get them elected and bring in programs that are half baked, compromised and lack foresight. Reactionary politics.

Sorry, I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some.

[Matty]

[QUOTE=Chris;336474]Sorry, I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some.[/QUOTE


well, I haven't met one yet who doesn't. Have you?

[Chris]

Sorry, I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some.


well, I haven't met one yet who doesn't. Have you?


Liberals, here, sure, adelaide, chloe, who, just to name a few. Those who do are actually few but vociferous in their vitriol.

[Cigar]

[QUOTE=Chris;336474]Sorry, I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some.[/QUOTE


well, I haven't met one yet who doesn't. Have you?

It's The Year 2013, and LBJ is dead ... see the difference

[jillian]

[QUOTE=WillowTree;336518]

It's The Year 2013, and LBJ is dead ... see the difference

is he implying that there was something wrong with passing the civil rights' act?

for real???/

[jillian]

L.B.J. came from the old style southern racist Democratic camp, but also being a very successful political opportunist, he championed equal rights in order to get votes and in particular to shift the black vote away from the GOP. There was nothing noble in his actions. In reaction to the Democratic championing of civil rights, the GOP went after the disenfranchised racist white vote. Hence the parties ultimately changed sides. LBJ's war on poverty was intended to get votes - I don't suppose he really cared about whether the outcome had a deleterious affect on the poor or whether he made a useful difference in the lives of black Americans. Fortunately the civil rights movement took on a life of its own. All politicians are ultimately opportunists who will promise whatever will get them elected and bring in programs that are half baked, compromised and lack foresight. Reactionary politics.

i disagree with your assessment... because he knew once he did the civil rights act that democrats would lose the south for a generation. he was being optimistic.

so i'm not quite sure what you base your assessment on, who?

[Bumpkin]

Like LBJ's war on poverty that has only increased the poverty rate?



Let's deal with facts.

There are two things to note here. First, there was a huge fall in the poverty rate throughout the 1960s, and in particular after LBJ announced the War on Poverty in 1964 and followed up with Medicaid, Medicare, greater federal housing spending, and other programs to fight that war. In 1964, the poverty rate was 19 percent. Ten years later, it was 11.2 percent, and it has not gone above 15.2 percent any year since then. Contrary to what you may have heard (http://www.amazon.com/Losing-Ground-American-Social-19501980/dp/1455165832), the best evidence indicates that the War on Poverty made a real and lasting difference (http://www.offthechartsblog.org/the-unfinished-war-on-poverty/).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/

[jillian]

NEWSFLASH, libtard. Not everyone on the right is white.

only 99%...

and i must have hit a nerve. very amusing watching you spew.

[jillian]

Let's deal with facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/

he's allergic to facts

[nic34]

Liberals, here, sure, adelaide, chloe, who, just to name a few. Those who do are actually few but vociferous in their vitriol.

.......civil rights weren't just given out, it took people who were vociferous in their vitriol..................

[Chris]

It's The Year 2013, and LBJ is dead ... see the difference

I see his fellow travelers here still.

[Bumpkin]

.......civil rights weren't just given out, it took people who were vociferous in their vitriol..................

Not all used vitriol, but I your point is excellent. Vociferousness helped.

[Chris]

.......civil rights weren't just given out, it took people who were vociferous in their vitriol..................

Rights aren't things to be given out, especially by governments. They're inherent in who we are, inalienable. What changed was government, a liberal one at that, in treating all men equally before the law. And it wasn't the vitriolic vociferous, but men like King and Republicans in Congress who fought for civil rights while Dems fought against it.

[Chris]

Not all used vitriol, but I your point is excellent. Vociferousness helped.

MLK wasn't vitriolic or vociferous. Neither was Rosa Parks. The Civil Rights Movement was largely peaceful. All extremely admirable people.

[Chris]

only 99%...

and i must have hit a nerve. very amusing watching you spew.

Is that your aim, to hit nerves? Most would call that flame baiting.

[Ravi]

Let's deal with facts.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/07/11/poverty-in-the-50-years-since-the-other-america-in-five-charts/
I did not know that, thanks for the information. I heard a NPR story a couple of years ago that was about poverty before the federal programs and was shocked to learn that before the 1960s there were children, American children, with the distended bellies of the extremely malnourished.

[nic34]

ummmm I think you sell short a lot of unknown soldiers in the fight for equal rights......


King and Republicans in Congress who fought for civil rights while Dems fought against it.

..... and again you are being dishonest..... those republicans like Dirksen and such you call them liberals today.... and you know dam well the dems were conserviative segregationist dixiecrats....who today call themselves REPUBLICANS.

[Dr. Who]

Sorry, I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some.True it is often and even likely mostly political opportunism to use race advocacy to advance whatever agenda would seem to be flavor of the month. It is also opportunism to use race in a negative way to advance a reactionary bigoted agenda that would seek to take away rights. However that is what politicians of either stripe do - pander to the lowest common denominator, because it gets votes.

As a liberal I believe that children have the right to eat nutritious meals, and sleep in a decent bed, live without rats and cockroaches and beg bug bites, and go to a decent school so that they can grow up to be productive citizens. I don't believe that able bodied people should have a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers. I think welfare systems need to be re-evaluated. There is no question that the disabled and the elderly should be cared for. I think that the unskilled welfare recipients need to be taught skills - if that means first ensuring that they first become literate, then so be it. Rectification of a bad educational system is the price that society will have to pay in order to ensure people are employable. For the unemployed, but employable welfare recipients, there may be workfare or in some cases, skills retraining.

I don't believe that children should be advanced from grade to grade without having passed the core material. I don't believe that curriculum should be geared to race. That's just racist nonsense. I don't believe in ebonics - also racist. It creates a caste of illiterate people who are unemployable. If black slaves could learn to read and write from the bible and simply by reading whatever books they could gain access to, and go on to learn law and theology and other academic subjects, there is no question that a standard curriculum is sufficient.

If welfare is not an easy option to fall back on, there may be more attention paid to ensuring that kids study and learn. As to single women on welfare who choose to repeatedly become pregnant - once may be a forgivable mistake. Twice or more is not. Welfare should not be increased on a per child basis the way it is now. Single women on welfare who give birth to one child should receive an additional benefit. More children would not increase the benefit. Now that would mean that the additional child and existing child might be malnourished, hence the government would have to step in and remove the additional child for its own sake. Harsh. Maybe. But unless the single mother could either obtain employment and demonstrate that she can provide for the additional child within a certain timeframe or if there is a family member who could step in and either provide the extra food or take the child, the child would be placed for adoption. There are millions of childless couples who could provide a good home.

I'm sure people will be calling for me to resign my liberal status.

[Bumpkin]

Rights aren't things to be given out, especially by governments. They're inherent in who we are, inalienable. What changed was government, a liberal one at that, in treating all men equally before the law. And it wasn't the vitriolic vociferous, but men like King and Republicans in Congress who fought for civil rights while Dems fought against it.

Regardless of the party, conservatives fought against civil rights and liberals fought for civil rights.

[nic34]

True it is often and even likely mostly political opportunism to use race advocacy to advance whatever agenda would seem to be flavor of the month. It is also opportunism to use race in a negative way to advance a reactionary bigoted agenda that would seek to take away rights. However that is what politicians of either stripe do - pander to the lowest common denominator, because it gets votes.

As a liberal I believe that children have the right to eat nutritious meals, and sleep in a decent bed, live without rats and cockroaches and beg bug bites, and go to a decent school so that they can grow up to be productive citizens. I don't believe that able bodied people should have a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers. I think welfare systems need to be re-evaluated. There is no question that the disabled and the elderly should be cared for. I think that the unskilled welfare recipients need to be taught skills - if that means first ensuring that they first become literate, then so be it. Rectification of a bad educational system is the price that society will have to pay in order to ensure people are employable. For the unemployed, but employable welfare recipients, there may be workfare or in some cases, skills retraining. I don't believe that children should be advanced from grade to grade without having passed the core material. I don't believe that curriculum should be geared to race. That's just racist nonsense. I don't believe in ebonics - also racist. It creates a caste of illiterate people who are unemployable. If black slaves could learn to read and write from the bible and simply by reading whatever books they could gain access to, and go on to learn law and theology and other academic subjects, there is no question that a standard curriculum is sufficient.

If welfare is not an easy option to fall back on, there may be more attention paid to ensuring that kids study and learn. As to single women on welfare who choose to repeatedly become pregnant - once may be a forgivable mistake. Twice or more is not. Welfare should not be increased on a per child basis the way it is now. Single women on welfare who give birth to one child should receive an additional benefit. More children would not increase the benefit. Now that would mean that the additional child and existing child might be malnourished, hence the government would have to step in and remove the additional child for its own sake. Harsh. Maybe. But unless the single mother could either obtain employment and demonstrate that she can provide for the additional child within a certain timeframe or if there is a family member who could step in and either provide the extra food or take the child, the child would be placed for adoption. There are millions of childless couples who could provide a good home.

I'm sure people will be calling for me to resign my liberal status.

Most of us "libs" agree with you.

[Ravi]

True it is often and even likely mostly political opportunism to use race advocacy to advance whatever agenda would seem to be flavor of the month. It is also opportunism to use race in a negative way to advance a reactionary bigoted agenda that would seek to take away rights. However that is what politicians of either stripe do - pander to the lowest common denominator, because it gets votes.

As a liberal I believe that children have the right to eat nutritious meals, and sleep in a decent bed, live without rats and cockroaches and beg bug bites, and go to a decent school so that they can grow up to be productive citizens. I don't believe that able bodied people should have a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers. I think welfare systems need to be re-evaluated. There is no question that the disabled and the elderly should be cared for. I think that the unskilled welfare recipients need to be taught skills - if that means first ensuring that they first become literate, then so be it. Rectification of a bad educational system is the price that society will have to pay in order to ensure people are employable. For the unemployed, but employable welfare recipients, there may be workfare or in some cases, skills retraining.

I don't believe that children should be advanced from grade to grade without having passed the core material. I don't believe that curriculum should be geared to race. That's just racist nonsense. I don't believe in ebonics - also racist. It creates a caste of illiterate people who are unemployable. If black slaves could learn to read and write from the bible and simply by reading whatever books they could gain access to, and go on to learn law and theology and other academic subjects, there is no question that a standard curriculum is sufficient.

If welfare is not an easy option to fall back on, there may be more attention paid to ensuring that kids study and learn. As to single women on welfare who choose to repeatedly become pregnant - once may be a forgivable mistake. Twice or more is not. Welfare should not be increased on a per child basis the way it is now. Single women on welfare who give birth to one child should receive an additional benefit. More children would not increase the benefit. Now that would mean that the additional child and existing child might be malnourished, hence the government would have to step in and remove the additional child for its own sake. Harsh. Maybe. But unless the single mother could either obtain employment and demonstrate that she can provide for the additional child within a certain timeframe or if there is a family member who could step in and either provide the extra food or take the child, the child would be placed for adoption. There are millions of childless couples who could provide a good home.

I'm sure people will be calling for me to resign my liberal status.
Why punish the child by taking it away from its family?

[Cigar]

MLK wasn't vitriolic or vociferous. Neither was Rosa Parks. The Civil Rights Movement was largely peaceful. All extremely admirable people.



You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet :wink:

[Bumpkin]

MLK wasn't vitriolic or vociferous. Neither was Rosa Parks. The Civil Rights Movement was largely peaceful. All extremely admirable people.

I did not say they were vitriolic. But they were vociferous.

[Chris]

ummmm I think you sell short a lot of unknown soldiers in the fight for equal rights......



..... and again you are being dishonest..... those republicans like Dirksen and such you call them liberals today.... and you know dam well the dems were conserviative segregationist dixiecrats....who today call themselves REPUBLICANS.

Ah, how you revise history, nic!

[Bumpkin]

ummmm I think you sell short a lot of unknown soldiers in the fight for equal rights......



..... and again you are being dishonest..... those republicans like Dirksen and such you call them liberals today.... and you know dam well the dems were conserviative segregationist dixiecrats....who today call themselves REPUBLICANS.

Absolutely.

[Chris]

True it is often and even likely mostly political opportunism to use race advocacy to advance whatever agenda would seem to be flavor of the month. It is also opportunism to use race in a negative way to advance a reactionary bigoted agenda that would seek to take away rights. However that is what politicians of either stripe do - pander to the lowest common denominator, because it gets votes.

As a liberal I believe that children have the right to eat nutritious meals, and sleep in a decent bed, live without rats and cockroaches and beg bug bites, and go to a decent school so that they can grow up to be productive citizens. I don't believe that able bodied people should have a free ride at the expense of the taxpayers. I think welfare systems need to be re-evaluated. There is no question that the disabled and the elderly should be cared for. I think that the unskilled welfare recipients need to be taught skills - if that means first ensuring that they first become literate, then so be it. Rectification of a bad educational system is the price that society will have to pay in order to ensure people are employable. For the unemployed, but employable welfare recipients, there may be workfare or in some cases, skills retraining.

I don't believe that children should be advanced from grade to grade without having passed the core material. I don't believe that curriculum should be geared to race. That's just racist nonsense. I don't believe in ebonics - also racist. It creates a caste of illiterate people who are unemployable. If black slaves could learn to read and write from the bible and simply by reading whatever books they could gain access to, and go on to learn law and theology and other academic subjects, there is no question that a standard curriculum is sufficient.

If welfare is not an easy option to fall back on, there may be more attention paid to ensuring that kids study and learn. As to single women on welfare who choose to repeatedly become pregnant - once may be a forgivable mistake. Twice or more is not. Welfare should not be increased on a per child basis the way it is now. Single women on welfare who give birth to one child should receive an additional benefit. More children would not increase the benefit. Now that would mean that the additional child and existing child might be malnourished, hence the government would have to step in and remove the additional child for its own sake. Harsh. Maybe. But unless the single mother could either obtain employment and demonstrate that she can provide for the additional child within a certain timeframe or if there is a family member who could step in and either provide the extra food or take the child, the child would be placed for adoption. There are millions of childless couples who could provide a good home.

I'm sure people will be calling for me to resign my liberal status.


True it is often and even likely mostly political opportunism to use race advocacy to advance whatever agenda would seem to be flavor of the month. It is also opportunism to use race in a negative way to advance a reactionary bigoted agenda that would seek to take away rights. However that is what politicians of either stripe do - pander to the lowest common denominator, because it gets votes.

I'll agree to that. Obama being the biggest race baiter and card player today, but there were and are others.

[Chris]

You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet :wink:

So you disapprove MLK's methods.

[Chris]

I did not say they were vitriolic. But they were vociferous.

From dictionary.com:

vo·cif·er·ous
/vəˈsifərəs/
Adjective
(esp. of a person or speech) Vehement or clamorous.
Synonyms
noisy - loud - clamorous - uproarious - obstreperous


Putting vitriolic and vociferous together was employing pleonasm for a purpose.

[Bumpkin]

Ah, how you revise history, nic!

That was not a revision of history. That was setting the record straight.

Regardless of party, conservatives fought against civil right and liberals fought for civil rights.

[Dr. Who]

NEWSFLASH, libtard. Not everyone on the right is white.

No name calling.

[Ravi]

From dictionary.com:

vo·cif·er·ous
/vəˈsifərəs/
Adjective
(esp. of a person or speech) Vehement or clamorous.
Synonyms
noisy - loud - clamorous - uproarious - obstreperous


Putting vitriolic and vociferous together was employing pleonasm for a purpose.

No it isn't. Vitriol is bitter criticism. Kind of like your posting style.

[jillian]

Ah, how you revise history, nic!

that IS history. no revision.

[Bumpkin]

From dictionary.com:

vo·cif·er·ous
/vəˈsifərəs/
Adjective
(esp. of a person or speech) Vehement or clamorous.
Synonyms
noisy - loud - clamorous - uproarious - obstreperous


Putting vitriolic and vociferous together was employing pleonasm for a purpose.


Let's try this definition:: marked by or given to ready vehement insistent outcry

It doesn't have to be loud, although it can be.

I have a dream!

[nic34]

Ah, how you revise history, nic!

Is that a Texas education talking....?

[Bumpkin]

No it isn't. Vitriol is bitter criticism. Kind of like your posting style.


Perhaps he doesn't realize that someone could be vehement without being nasty and even without being very loud.

[jillian]

Is that a Texas education talking....?

he had an education?

[Ravi]

So you disapprove MLK's methods.What's up with the false accusation?

[Chris]

That was not a revision of history. That was setting the record straight.

Regardless of party, conservatives fought against civil right and liberals fought for civil rights.

Oh but it was. The Democrats has a long racist history that some like to whitewash nowadays. It's similar to calling socialist Hitler a right winger.

[Chris]

What's up with the false accusation?

Uh, I asked him based on his post. Go back and try to read the entire exchange instead of making false accusations yourself.

[Chris]

Let's try this definition:: marked by or given to ready vehement insistent outcry

It doesn't have to be loud, although it can be.

I have a dream!

That wasn't vehement, it was eloquent.

[Chris]

he had an education?

Nice personal insult, jill!

[Ravi]

Uh, I asked him based on his post. Go back and try to read the entire exchange instead of making false accusations yourself.
Actually, you didn't ask anything. You made a statement. A false accusation that you just claimed in another thread that you never do. LMAO I think the majority of the posters here can see right through you.

[Chris]

Actually, you didn't ask anything. You made a statement. A false accusation that you just claimed in another thread that you never do. LMAO I think the majority of the posters here can see right through you.

You're making things up, marie. Best get back to topic.

[Ravi]

Nice personal insult, jill!

Not at all. She asked based on your postings here.

[Chris]

MLK wasn't vitriolic or vociferous. Neither was Rosa Parks. The Civil Rights Movement was largely peaceful. All extremely admirable people.


You have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet :wink:


So you disapprove MLK's methods.

There's the exchange, marie. My point was MLK and others were peaceful. Cigar's you must be violent. Thus, he disapproves MLK's peaceful methods for violence.

[Ravi]

There's the exchange, marie. My point was MLK and others were peaceful. Cigar's you must be violent. Thus, he disapproves MLK's peaceful methods for violence.
That is your assumption. In reality, Cigar was probably just winding you up.

[Chris]

Not at all. She asked based on your postings here.

She attacked me personally, marie. Her problem, not mine, I'm just pointing it out.

Did you have anything to contribute to the topic under discussion? Or are you just going to take silly pot shots at me while I shrug them off and you get irritated to point you break rules? Up to you, take pot shots, I'll point them out for the silliness they are.

[Chris]

That is your assumption. In reality, Cigar was probably just winding you up.

Ah, so now you move the goalposts. Are you saying cigar was trolling? Well, are you, marie?

[Bumpkin]

Oh but it was. The Democrats has a long racist history that some like to whitewash nowadays. It's similar to calling socialist Hitler a right winger.

Let's talk about conservatives and liberals.

You are using a common tactic. When you talk about race, you talk about the history of the Democratic Party. You fail to point out that conservatives fought civil rights and liberals supported civil rights.

There was a shift in the kinds of people who joined the parties. That shift came about because of race relations.

But if it makes you feel better to talk about which parties did what instead of discussing the people and the philosophies, go right ahead. But please know that I know the difference between the people who were in the parties back then and the people who are in those parties today. I know what their racist views were back then, and I know what party they are in today. Every racist I know back then are conservatives in the Republican Party today. The non-racists I know back then are liberals and vote for Democratic candidates generally.

[Chris]

Let's talk about conservatives and liberals.

You are using a common tactic. When you talk about race, you talk about the history of the Democratic Party. You fail to point out that conservatives fought civil rights and liberals supported civil rights.

There was a shift in the kinds of people who joined the parties. That shift came about because of race relations.

But if it makes you feel better to talk about which parties did what instead of discussing the people and the philosophies, go right ahead. But please know that I know the difference between the people who were in the parties back then and the people who are in those parties today. I know what their racist views were back then, and I know what party they are in today. Every racist I know back then are conservatives in the Republican Party today. The non-racists I know back then are liberals and vote for Democratic candidates generally.

The topic is racism.

You say you want to talk liberals and conservatives. Then you talk Democrats and Republicans. And you rewrite history. With personal anecdotes.

Not interested especially.

[junie]

"How Do We Fix Race Relations?"






you start by not rooting for the white guy who killed an unarmed black kid like it's some type of white victory.

and by not having people on your senate staff who write white supremacist articles

you don't support voting laws that suppress minority vote

you don't high five people who compare immigrants to dogs.... or say that for every latino valdictorian there are 100 who have 'calves like bowling balls' from carrying 75 pound packages of pot across the border.

hint: if you don't understand why those things are offensive and turn off... well, almost everyone... then THAT is the reason you have problems with race relations.



By not twisting everything to suit a racist agenda.



where is this "twist" you see? please back up your claims with some real facts, not partisan rhetoric...

[junie]

These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it.



chris is blanket attacking all liberals as supposedly "twisting everything to suit their racist agenda".

let's hold him to some facts. what is the agenda? where is the big twist?

[Chris]

"How Do We Fix Race Relations?"


Each statement was a left-handed twist, spin, or partisan rhetoric, if you will.

Uh, jun, I'm not a partisan, I belong to no party, Rep nor Dem, so what are you talking about?







where is this "twist" you see? please back up your claims with some real facts, not partisan rhetoric...

[Chris]

chris is blanket attacking all liberals as supposedly "twisting everything to suit their racist agenda".

let's hold him to some facts. what is the agenda? where is the big twist?


These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it.

That's attacking all cons. It was your tag-team buddy.

I specified those who inject racism into everything, not all liberals. I made that point later as well: "I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some." http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=336474&viewfull=1#post336474

Nice shot in the dark. Inadvertently you hit marie.

[junie]

"How Do We Fix Race Relations?"






you start by not rooting for the white guy who killed an unarmed black kid like it's some type of white victory.

and by not having people on your senate staff who write white supremacist articles

you don't support voting laws that suppress minority vote

you don't high five people who compare immigrants to dogs.... or say that for every latino valdictorian there are 100 who have 'calves like bowling balls' from carrying 75 pound packages of pot across the border.

hint: if you don't understand why those things are offensive and turn off... well, almost everyone... then THAT is the reason you have problems with race relations.



By not twisting everything to suit a racist agenda.



where is this "twist" you see? please back up your claims with some real facts, not partisan rhetoric...




That's attacking all cons. It was your tag-team buddy.

I specified those who inject racism into everything, not all liberals. I made that point later as well: "I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some." http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=336474&viewfull=1#post336474

Nice shot in the dark. Inadvertently you hit marie.


lol so your official response is that marie did it too? :lame:



when someone refers to nutters it only refers to anyone who appears to be nutty, so it's not her fault that you answer to that term.

"These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it."




pretty strange how you imagine a "shot in the dark" and a "tag-team buddy".

now let's see if you can actually respond with some facts to support the supposed "twists" and the "racist agenda" you speak of...?

[Bumpkin]

The topic is racism.

You say you want to talk liberals and conservatives. Then you talk Democrats and Republicans. And you rewrite history. With personal anecdotes.

Not interested especially.

I did not rewrite history. Personal anecdotes that everyone who was alive back then know to be true.

[Bumpkin]

The bottom line is this: Conservatives fought against civil right and liberals fought for civil rights.

Some like to name the parties in hopes of making it seem that liberal Democrats fought civil rights and conservative Republicans supported civil rights. But it didn't happen that way. You are not talking about ancient history. Some of us went to school in the segregated South. Some of us know what parties the segregationists and the integrationists are in today.

[Chris]

"How Do We Fix Race Relations?"










where is this "twist" you see? please back up your claims with some real facts, not partisan rhetoric...






lol so your official response is that marie did it too? :lame:



when someone refers to nutters it only refers to anyone who appears to be nutty, so it's not her fault that you answer to that term.

"These articles penned by rightwingnutters always assume black people are stupid enough to fall for their idiotic rhetoric. I love it."




pretty strange how you imagine a "shot in the dark" and a "tag-team buddy".

now let's see if you can actually respond with some facts to support the supposed "twists" and the "racist agenda" you speak of...?





lol so your official response is that marie did it too?

Uh, no, that only she did it. And, yes, it was lame.



so it's not her fault that you answer to that term

I didn't answer to it, I pointed out how she's lumping.

[Chris]

OK, heel nipping aside, hopefully, here's an interesting message for the race baiters and race card players:


As the father of a multi-racial family, this reality strikes at the disappointment my soul feels about many things in our nation today, but none more personal.

Some who see the headline to this piece will immediately assume I've taken a position in this fight. Because I merely observe what is evident, and state my observation publicly. Some whites will believe I am attacking them. Many African-Americans will believe I am championing their grievances. The truth is neither, the truth is both, and the truth will never be admitted.

For it is impossible to cure a societal sickness, when parties don't wish for it to be cured!

And while there are some pockets where racial bias presents itself in the white to black reality of our culture, the overwhelming abusers of race, the manipulators of skin color, and the purveyors of hate based on ignorance and ill will--are actually those who claim they are fighting against it....

He offers an example:


The case of Travon Martin's death is the complete evidence of that last assertion.

No where, was there an ounce of evidence that the man who shot Travon followed him, reported him, or defended himself against him--even for his very life--based on the color of Travon's skin. Yet "civil rights 'leaders'"--who in reality have more moral authority being a clown in a local circus than thoughtful and genuine purveyors of racial understanding--manipulated every element of fact in the case to convince the sleeping media--who refused to do their homework--that the man who shot Travon was racially motivated, racially biased, and hateful of races different than his.

None of which was proven in the elongated case, coverage during, or clownery following the conclusion.

Simply put, the Sharpton, Jackson, Holder, and Obama rhetoric--though stating it was dressed in compromise--actually was intended to incite further anger, resentment, and furtherance of the untruths told for months in the case....

And he concludes:


This combination of dishonesty, access, and support now furthers racist outcomes and those involved are directly contributing to the anger, vandalism, and violence that follows in its wake.

As the father of a son whose skin is darker than any of the men mentioned in this article, my fear is what consequences he faces, because of their vanity, selfishness, hubris, and greed.

See in order to end racism, you must not merely tolerate people who are different than you--but begin to truly honor, serve, and love them.

And it is the absence of honor in the character of today's "civil rights 'leaders'" that betrays their true intention: to practice racism, and to profit from it for themselves indefinitely.

Making it an issue that appears at present nearly impossible to defeat.

@ Why American Racism Is Impossible To Defeat (http://townhall.com/columnists/kevinmccullough/2013/07/28/why-american-racism-is-impossible-to-defeat-n1650666/page/full)


(Hope I got the ellipses right!)

[Bumpkin]

(Hope I got the ellipses right!)

:laugh:

I only see one, so that would be ellipsis instead of ellipses, which is the plural. I think.

[Chris]

:laugh:

I only see one, so that would be ellipsis instead of ellipses, which is the plural. I think.

Look again, two, where I interject comments.

[nic34]

The bottom line is this: Conservatives fought against civil right and liberals fought for civil rights.

Some like to name the parties in hopes of making it seem that liberal Democrats fought civil rights and conservative Republicans supported civil rights. But it didn't happen that way. You are not talking about ancient history. Some of us went to school in the segregated South. Some of us know what parties the segregationists and the integrationists are in today.

For someone so adamant about not using "party" labels, chris sure can use them when he wants to.

We all know the civil rights struggle came from the liberal side whose roots go back to the first republican Abraham Lincoln....

Segregationist Strom Thurmond and all his friends switched from the Dem to Rep Party in 1964 ..... and we all know the history from there
.

[Dr. Who]

Uh, jun, I'm not a partisan, I belong to no party, Rep nor Dem, so what are you talking about?


I could swear you stated a few days ago that you are a member of the Tea Party? I know they aren't national, but you are a member nevertheless.

[Bumpkin]

Oops. My mistake. That hurts. My first one in 2013.

(In reply to my the ellipsis/ellipses response.

[metheron]

you start by not rooting for the white guy who killed an unarmed black kid like it's some type of white victory.

Wouldn't it be fairer to say let the law play out instead of the media taking sides. Behind closed doors I am sure both sides were well represented, but in the media, the one that was ultimately found not guilty had already been convicted.


and by not having people on your senate staff who write white supremacist articles

And by not having the President take sides either. Or if he is going to take part at least acknowledge crimes that happen black on white the same way.


you don't high five people who compare immigrants to dogs.... or say that for every latino valdictorian there are 100 who have 'calves like bowling balls' from carrying 75 pound packages of pot across the border.

No doubt about that. Both wrong

[Mainecoons]

Who is rooting for Zimmerman? Is accepting the validity of the trial and acquittal process "rooting" for Zimmerman?

I recall many, if not most of us see that Zimmerman wasn't exactly a saint here. More like a dumb-assed wanna be cop. Personally, I felt that he should have been charged with aggravated assault and he would have been convicted of it by that jury

However, the lefties were so obsessed with turning this into a racial prosecution, they forgot to bring an even marginally winnable case to court.

Poor Jillian, so blinded with race hate that she just can't get over it. Why do I have the feeling she rooted for OJ too?

[Bumpkin]

Zimmerman has a fan club.

[Mainecoons]

Are you a member?

[Bumpkin]

Are you a member?

Nope.

Here's my policy. The person with the gun is wrong. Period.

The chances are so very slim that someone with a gun would actually come across a situation in which he would need to use the gun to kill someone in self-defense. More often, someone with a gun would provoke a confrontation so he could pretend self-defense and kill somsone.

In fact, Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon. He could have shot him in the leg and stopped him. instead he chose to kill him.

Because he did not choose to shoot in a place less likely to be lethal, we know he has no business with a gun. He's not even adequate at using the gun and he's not emotionally equipped to carry a gun.

[Chris]

Nope.

Here's my policy. The person with the gun is wrong. Period.

The chances are so very slim that someone with a gun would actually come across a situation in which he would need to use the gun to kill someone in self-defense. More often, someone with a gun would provoke a confrontation so he could pretend self-defense and kill somsone.

In fact, Zimmerman wanted to kill Trayvon. He could have shot him in the leg and stopped him. instead he chose to kill him.

Because he did not choose to shoot in a place less likely to be lethal, we know he has no business with a gun. He's not even adequate at using the gun and he's not emotionally equipped to carry a gun.

Little of that is supported by the evidence.

[Mainecoons]

Here's my policy. The person with the gun is wrong. Period.

Don't confuse your policy with the law.

[Chris]

For someone so adamant about not using "party" labels, chris sure can use them when he wants to.

We all know the civil rights struggle came from the liberal side whose roots go back to the first republican Abraham Lincoln....

Segregationist Strom Thurmond and all his friends switched from the Dem to Rep Party in 1964 ..... and we all know the history from there
.

You're right, I think both parties silly and wrong, not much real difference between them.

[Chris]

I could swear you stated a few days ago that you are a member of the Tea Party? I know they aren't national, but you are a member nevertheless.

It's not a party like Reps and Dems. It's a movement.

[Agravan]

It's not a party like Reps and Dems. It's a movement.3369

[Bumpkin]

Little of that is supported by the evidence.

He was either a bad shot who couldn't shoot to wound instead of to kill, or he was a good shot who chose to kill. Take your pick. Either way, he should not be trusted with a gun or trusted to patrol a neighborhood.

And I was right about the slim chance of an armed person actually coming across a situation in which he needs to kill someone to avoid death or injury.

[Bumpkin]

Don't confuse your policy with the law.


[/I][/COLOR]

I know the difference between the law and my own personal opinion. But I make a good argument for my opinion.

[Chris]

He was either a bad shot who couldn't shoot to wound instead of to kill, or he was a good shot who chose to kill. Take your pick. Either way, he should not be trusted with a gun or trusted to patrol a neighborhood.

And I was right about the slim chance of an armed person actually coming across a situation in which he needs to kill someone to avoid death or injury.

False dichotomy.

No, you weren't right in this case.

You still lack any supporting evidence. Just speculation.

[Chris]

I know the difference between the law and my own personal opinion. But I make a good argument for my opinion.

No you don't actually. You merely stated an opinion with justification.

"Here's my policy. The person with the gun is wrong. Period."

That's all you said.

[Bumpkin]

False dichotomy.

No, you weren't right in this case.

You still lack any supporting evidence. Just speculation.

You are speculating that I'm wrong.

Let's put it this way. I don't know with a certainly that it's true. But I do notice that of all the hundreds of people I know who are armed, not one has ever come across such a situation. Most cops who are out looking for bad guys never have to shoot anyone. So I'm on firm ground with my speculating; it's based on something besides wishful thinking.

[Bumpkin]

No you don't actually. You merely stated an opinion with justification.

"Here's my policy. The person with the gun is wrong. Period."

That's all you said.

That is not all I said. That's all you quoted from my post. I included an explanation.

[Bumpkin]

If I presented a false dichotomy, you will be able to present something else besides my either/or statement. So let's hear it.

[Chris]

That is not all I said. That's all you quoted from my post. I included an explanation.

That is all you said about your policy. Period.

[Chris]

You are speculating that I'm wrong.

Let's put it this way. I don't know with a certainly that it's true. But I do notice that of all the hundreds of people I know who are armed, not one has ever come across such a situation. Most cops who are out looking for bad guys never have to shoot anyone. So I'm on firm ground with my speculating; it's based on something besides wishful thinking.

How silly your response. But at least you admit you're speculating. Let me know when you can substantiate from the actual case rather than your private ruminations.

[Chris]

If I presented a false dichotomy, you will be able to present something else besides my either/or statement. So let's hear it.

There's probably an infinite number of possibilities to invent. What's any of it to do with the Zimmerman case?

[Bumpkin]

That is all you said about your policy. Period.

No, it's not. It's all you quoted. But I had a fairly long explanation.
http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=336810&viewfull=1#post336810

[Bumpkin]

There's probably an infinite number of possibilities to invent. What's any of it to do with the Zimmerman case?

Infinite? I doubt it.

But you said I presented a false dichotomy. From all those "infinite" possibilities, you can present one more to prove my either/or wrong?

[Bumpkin]

How silly your response. But at least you admit you're speculating. Let me know when you can substantiate from the actual case rather than your private ruminations.


I'm speculating based on common sense. I'm not just making a wild guess based on nothing.

[Chris]

Let me know when you're actually talking about the Zimmerman case. Not all that interested in how your mind works, or doesn't.

[Bumpkin]

Let me know when you're actually talking about the Zimmerman case. Not all that interested in how your mind works, or doesn't.

Translation: I don't have anything I can present to prove that you presented a false dichotomy.

[Chris]

Translation: I don't have anything I can present to prove that you presented a false dichotomy.


Whatever serves your self satisfaction, bumpkin.

But, you know what, hook up with cigar, he loves that sort of self-serving speculation. The two of you could together create a whole mess of alternative universes.

But think psychological fallacy.

[Bumpkin]

Well, I think it's cute that you study logical fallacies and that you love to plop their names into posts when you can't think of anything to say.

In fact, your plopping the names of fallacies into the discussion is itself a red herring.

Oh, and my post was not a psychological fallacy.

[Chris]

3369

Sometimes a little hard to believe, right, almost willful.

[Chris]

Well, I think it's cute that you study logical fallacies and that you love to plop their names into posts when you can't think of anything to say.

In fact, your plopping the names of fallacies into the discussion is itself a red herring.

Oh, and my post was not a psychological fallacy.

I think it silly making things up like that about others. Just another psychological fallacy:


... occurs when an observer assumes that his/her subjective experience reflects the true nature of an event. The fallacy was named by William James in the 19th century:

The great snare of the psychologist is the confusion of his own standpoint with that of the mental fact about which he is making his report. I shall hereafter call this the ‘psychologist's fallacy’ par excellence.[1]
A classic example of the Psychologist's Fallacy is the experience of the geocentric model of the solar system. An observer on Earth experiences the sun moving across the sky. This experience, however, does not reveal the true nature that the Earth revolves around the sun....

@ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist's_fallacy


Did I get the ellipses right? I realize that's a big issue with you when you have nothing to argue.

[Bumpkin]

My comments were not a psychological fallacy. With all due respect, I don't think you understand what I said. And I wasn't just relying on my experiences.

[Rebel Son]

You are speculating that I'm wrong.

Let's put it this way. I don't know with a certainly that it's true. But I do notice that of all the hundreds of people I know who are armed, not one has ever come across such a situation. Most cops who are out looking for bad guys never have to shoot anyone. So I'm on firm ground with my speculating; it's based on something besides wishful thinking.

Easily fact checked I figure because I've read the facts from the doj about stats on self defense. You can speculate and repeat to your hearts content but until you produce facts to support your ideology, then it is just that, basically a theory.

One more question, if you think that anybody with a legal gun who uses it is wrong..........why do you have hundreds of people you know who are armed? I can't call hundreds of people even a casual acquaintance much less remember even a quarter of that amount.

God bless you, you must have thousands of friends who don't carry a gun.

[Chris]

My comments were not a psychological fallacy. With all due respect, I don't think you understand what I said. And I wasn't just relying on my experiences.

You were depending of speculation you agree with, same thing.

Nowhere did you tie your mental gyrations to reality, beginning with your policy: "Here's my policy. The person with the gun is wrong. Period." As already pointed out, disconnected with the reality of law. More wishful thinking than anything.

[Chris]

Easily fact checked I figure because I've read the facts from the doj about stats on self defense. You can speculate and repeat to your hearts content but until you produce facts to support your ideology, then it is just that, basically a theory.

One more question, if you think that anybody with a legal gun who uses it is wrong..........why do you have hundreds of people you know who are armed? I can't call hundreds of people even a casual acquaintance much less remember even a quarter of that amount.

God bless you, you must have thousands of friends who don't carry a gun.

And he was trying to apply that speculatin' to the Zimmerman case without so much as referring to a fact in the case.

[Dr. Who]

It's not a party like Reps and Dems. It's a movement.It's still a political affiliation like being a member of the Communist Party.

[Bumpkin]

Easily fact checked I figure because I've read the facts from the doj about stats on self defense. You can speculate and repeat to your hearts content but until you produce facts to support your ideology, then it is just that, basically a theory.

One more question, if you think that anybody with a legal gun who uses it is wrong..........why do you have hundreds of people you know who are armed? I can't call hundreds of people even a casual acquaintance much less remember even a quarter of that amount.

God bless you, you must have thousands of friends who don't carry a gun.

I've read the stats too. The chance of an armed person needing to shoot in self-defense are very slim.

I don't understand your question. I don't think someone is wrong for using a gun. I think they are wrong when they kill someone with the gun.

I don't have thousands of friends. But most of my friends and relatives own guns. So do I. Where I live, it is common to have plenty of guns around. Still, I don't know anyone who has had to shoot in self-defense. It's also true that the stats tell us it's even unusual for a cop to have to shoot someone. Stats tell us that people in the general population seldom shoot anyone.

[Bumpkin]

And he was trying to apply that speculatin' to the Zimmerman case without so much as referring to a fact in the case.

I referred to facts about Zimmerman. Either he is a good shot who intentionally killed instead of wounding Trayvon, or he is a bad shot who should not have a gun.

If he killed him on purpose, he is not mentally qualified to carry a gun.

[Mainecoons]

If, if, if, if, if!

:rofl:

[Bumpkin]

If, if, if, if, if!

:rofl:

What's funny about that.

IF he killed him on purpose, he is not qualified to carry a gun.

IF he killed him accidentally, he is not qualified to carry a gun.

Chris says there are infinite other possibilities besides what I wrote, but he wants to keep those a secret.

[Agravan]

I referred to facts about Zimmerman. Either he is a good shot who intentionally killed instead of wounding Trayvon, or he is a bad shot who should not have a gun.

If he killed him on purpose, he is not mentally qualified to carry a gun.

Dude, if I ever have to pull a gun on someone and shoot them, you can be damned sure I WILL NOT be shooting to wound. All you do when you shoot to wound is to set yourself up for a lawsuit or create an enemy who may decide to come back at you or your family when you are NOT prepared for him.

[Bumpkin]

Oh, wow! You're a tough one! I'm impressed.

You can get a lawsuit or revenge when you shoot to kill, too.

Use your noggin for something besides a rack for that Stetson.

[Rebel Son]

I've read the stats too. The chance of an armed person needing to shoot in self-defense are very slim.

I don't understand your question. I don't think someone is wrong for using a gun. I think they are wrong when they kill someone with the gun.

I don't have thousands of friends. But most of my friends and relatives own guns. Do do I. Where I live, it is common to have plenty of guns around. Still, I don't know anyone who has had to shoot in self-defense. It's also true that the stats tell us it's even unusual for a cop to have to shoot someone. Stats tell us that people in the general population seldom shoot anyone.

I'm figuring the do do I was supposed to be so do I?? Do you own a weapon,?

Now lets go back over this, guns are not bad and the people who own them are not bad. It's only when somebody defends their property or family and have to kill somebody for that reason that they have committed some type offense in your opinion?

Do you live in a crime ridden place like Detroit, Atlanta, ...........or do you live in rural America where you go hunting and fishing on a stock pond and never have to worry about being car jacked or killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

[Agravan]

Oh, wow! You're a tough one! I'm impressed.

You can get a lawsuit or revenge when you shoot to kill, too.

Use your noggin for something besides a rack for that Stetson.
I never claimed to be tough. Just use common sense. Sure you can get sued, but what should you do then? Run away like a good little liberal would do?

[Bumpkin]

I'm figuring the do do I was supposed to be so do I?? Do you own a weapon,?

Now lets go back over this, guns are not bad and the people who own them are not bad. It's only when somebody defends their property or family and have to kill somebody for that reason that they have committed some type offense in your opinion?

Do you live in a crime ridden place like Detroit, Atlanta, ...........or do you live in rural America where you go hunting and fishing on a stock pond and never have to worry about being car jacked or killed for being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I own several weapons.

I am saying that it is next to impossible to have to shoot someone in self-defense.

Where do you live?

[Bumpkin]

I never claimed to be tough. Just use common sense. Sure you can get sued, but what should you do then? Run away like a good little liberal would do?

What are you supposed to do? Shoot to wound instead of to kill. Of course, if you are a bad shot, which is likely, that won't be possible, will it?

Good little liberals don't run away. I'm a good little liberal. I don't run.

[Mainecoons]

Tell it to the judge and jury.

[Agravan]

What are you supposed to do? Shoot to wound instead of to kill. Of course, if you are a bad shot, which is likely, that won't be possible, will it?

Good little liberals don't run away. I'm a good little liberal. I don't run.
Not with a twelve gauge and double O shot. Kinda hard to just wound with that. If they're in my house, they will be carried out in a body bag. you "protect" yours the way you want, I'll protect mine the right way.

[Mainecoons]

What are you supposed to do? Shoot to wound instead of to kill. Of course, if you are a bad shot, which is likely, that won't be possible, will it?

Good little liberals don't run away. I'm a good little liberal. I don't run.

You're a big talking little liberal that obviously has never had to put your self defense theories into practice. For your sake, I hope that you don't.

[Rebel Son]

I own several weapons.

I am saying that it is next to impossible to have to shoot someone in self-defense.

Where do you live?

Where I live is not important, what is important is your ridiculous claim that everybody should be safe without a weapon.

Why do you even own a weapon, are you so poor that you need to hunt to eat? Nothing to be Ashamed of, I grew up dirt poor and hunted for meat too.

I'm assuming you must be a shaolin monk with super human kung fu skills. Personally I'd like a weapon.

[Bumpkin]

Not with a twelve gauge and double O shot. Kinda hard to just wound with that. If they're in my house, they will be carried out in a body bag. you "protect" yours the way you want, I'll protect mine the right way.

Protect your what?

The chances of anyone being in your house are very slim.

[Rebel Son]

Protect your what?

The chances of anyone being in your house are very slim.

Insults when you run out of answers, huh?

[Bumpkin]

Where I live is not important, what is important is your ridiculous claim that everybody should be safe without a weapon.

Why do you even own a weapon, are you so poor that you need to hunt to eat? Nothing to be Ashamed of, I grew up dirt poor and hunted for meat too.

I'm assuming you must be a shaolin monk with super human kung fu skills. Personally I'd like a weapon.

People are safe without weapons. I don't mind if they feel safer with a weapon. We all have our own personal degrees of fear. I'm pretty much fearless, I guess. I feel perfectly safe without a weapon and always have felt safe.

You asked where I lived, so I figure where you live is just as important as where I live.

I don't hunt. I have weapons because people gave them to me. I'm not poor but would not be ashamed if I were.

[Bumpkin]

Insults when you run out of answers, huh?

Huh? What insult?

I asked a simple question. Then I pointed out that it's not likely that anyone would invade your home.

[Bumpkin]

You're a big talking little liberal that obviously has never had to put your self defense theories into practice. For your sake, I hope that you don't.

The chances of me or anyone ever having to defend themselves are very slim.

[Bumpkin]

Not with a twelve gauge and double O shot. Kinda hard to just wound with that. If they're in my house, they will be carried out in a body bag. you "protect" yours the way you want, I'll protect mine the right way.

I always laugh about this kind of thing. There are folks who actually imagine that they will prevail in a fight. It doesn't occur to them that a person coming into their house might kill them.

But such things are so rare, so you should sleep soundly and not worry.

[Rebel Son]

People are safe without weapons. I don't mind if they feel safer with a weapon. We all have our own person degrees of fear. I'm pretty much fearless, I guess. I feel perfectly safe without a weapon and always have felt safe.

You asked where I lived, so I figure where you live is just as important as where I live.

I don't hunt. I have weapons because people gave them to me. I'm not poor but would not be ashamed if I were.

"People are safe without weapons"..........Really? Tell that to the thousands of families who have had a loved one murdered this year alone.

Well shit, since you don't need a gun and your are fearless, I'll set up a po box and you can send me all your unwanted and needed guns.

Does your daddy know you are posting this time of night?

How does it feel to be the "Man of steel"?

[Bumpkin]

"People are safe without weapons"..........Really? Tell that to the thousands of families who have had a loved one murdered this year alone.

Well shit, since you don't need a gun and your are fearless, I'll set up a po box and you can send me all your unwanted and needed guns.

Does your daddy know you are posting this time of night?

How does it feel to be the "Man of steel"?

As sad as it is that people are murdered, it is a rare thing. I suspect with most of them, it wouldn't have mattered if they had a gun with them. They would have been killed anyway.

Why are you asking about my daddy?

I'm not a "Man of steel." Where did you get that notion.

I just don't go around afraid and thinking I need to tote a gun. I figure the odds. It's kind of like some people don't wear helmets or fasten seat belts. They figure the odds. I think the odds of needing that seat belt are greater than the odds of my needing a gun. In fact, I know it.

[Rebel Son]

As sad as it is that people are murdered, it is a rare thing.

Really, murder is a rare thing. Exactly what planet do you live on and exactly how do I get there? I'm not sure how I can carry on an adult conversation with you after that comment. Later, "dude".

[Bumpkin]

Really, murder is a rare thing. Exactly what planet do you live on and exactly how do I get there? I'm not sure how I can carry on an adult conversation with you after that comment. Later, "dude".

I base that on statistics. What is the murder rate?

And remember that most murders would not likely be prevented by someone being armed. You make it sound as if murders are all from people being gunned down.

[Chris]

It's still a political affiliation like being a member of the Communist Party.

No, it's not, your equivocation doesn't hold water. The Communist Party, lie the DNC and GOP, is a single, centralized organization. The Tea Parties are multiple, decentralized entities organized at the local voting district level. It's a movement, not a party.

[Chris]

I referred to facts about Zimmerman. Either he is a good shot who intentionally killed instead of wounding Trayvon, or he is a bad shot who should not have a gun.

If he killed him on purpose, he is not mentally qualified to carry a gun.

"Either he is..." is not a fact. It's not even logical.

[Chris]

If, if, if, if, if!

:rofl:

Exactly, like so many liberals here he's inventing hypotheticals, mostly false dichotomies, and calling them facts. They're not.

[Chris]

If, if, if, if, if!

:rofl:


What's funny about that.

IF he killed him on purpose, he is not qualified to carry a gun.

IF he killed him accidentally, he is not qualified to carry a gun.

Chris says there are infinite other possibilities besides what I wrote, but he wants to keep those a secret.

Rather I don't want to invent things like you do.

BTW, your thens are non sequiturs to your ifs.

[Chris]

Dude, if I ever have to pull a gun on someone and shoot them, you can be damned sure I WILL NOT be shooting to wound. All you do when you shoot to wound is to set yourself up for a lawsuit or create an enemy who may decide to come back at you or your family when you are NOT prepared for him.


Oh, wow! You're a tough one! I'm impressed.

You can get a lawsuit or revenge when you shoot to kill, too.

Use your noggin for something besides a rack for that Stetson.


Presented a rational message, you attack the messenger. I'm impressed.

[Chris]

I base that on statistics. What is the murder rate?

And remember that most murders would not likely be prevented by someone being armed. You make it sound as if murders are all from people being gunned down.

Abstract statistics don't tell you anything about specific events. Simple as the 50/50 chance a flipped coin will land heads or tails doesn't tell you how the next flip will land. However unlikely an event, it's possibility is admitted in the probability.

[Matty]

[QUOTE=Cigar;336521]

is he implying that there was something wrong with passing the civil rights' act?

for real???/
who are you talking about? Cigar?

[Matty]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2573062610001/al-sharpton-and-the-grievance-industry-strike-back-/




Watch this, it probably won't change your mind but it's worth watching anyway. I was especially surprised by the news of the CNN commentator.

[Matty]

Who does Al Sharpton think he is trying to tell white people what they can and cannot talk about? Yep! A race hustler.

[Bumpkin]

"Either he is..." is not a fact. It's not even logical.

Yes, it is logical.

If you believe it is wrong, present some argument to support your belief. So far you have not done that.

You might want to take a peek at the topic about The Federalist Papers. Can you handle it?

[Cigar]

Who does Al Sharpton think he is trying to tell white people what they can and cannot talk about? Yep! A race hustler.

You're on The Political Forum ... not sure how your question can get answered here.

You can always call Al Sharpton yourself

[Cigar]

[QUOTE=jillian;336528]
who are you talking about? Cigar?

That wasn't "my" quote. :rollseyes:

[Matty]

You're on The Political Forum ... not sure how your question can get answered here.

You can always call Al Sharpton yourself


Chaps yer ass that you can't tell me what to post. I'm doing good.

[Bumpkin]

Exactly, like so many liberals here he's inventing hypotheticals, mostly false dichotomies, and calling them facts. They're not.

Interesting that you can't refute the hypotheticals and so-called false dichotomies.

I could help you with that, but I won't.

[Bumpkin]

BTW, your thens are non sequiturs to your ifs.

No, they are not.

[Bumpkin]

Presented a rational message, you attack the messenger. I'm impressed.

I gave him back a rational argument that he could not and did not dispute. In fact, whether you shoot to kill or shoot to wound, you could find yourself in a lawsuit or the target of revenge.

[Bumpkin]

Abstract statistics don't tell you anything about specific events. Simple as the 50/50 chance a flipped coin will land heads or tails doesn't tell you how the next flip will land. However unlikely an event, it's possibility is admitted in the probability.

True. So what is the probability that a bad guy will attack you today? I'd say about as likely as getting struck by lightning. Do you have a lightning rod on your head?

[Cigar]

Bill O'Reilly's Harlem shocker: Famed eatery Sylvia's just like white restaurants


Fox News conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly expressed surprise that there was no difference between eating at Sylvia's - the famed African-American eatery in Harlem - and white-owned restaurants.



After a recent meal, O'Reilly told a radio audience that he "couldn't get over the fact" that there was no difference between the black-run Sylvia's and other restaurants.
"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun," he said. "And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."


O'Reilly had treated civil-rights rabble-rouser Al Sharpton to dinner at Sylvia's to thank him for appearing on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor." The right-wing pundit made the statements on his nationally syndicated radio show last week.


Media Matters for America, a left-wing media watchdog group, has drummed up attention to O'Reilly's statements by sending a transcript and audio clip around on the Internet.


Bill Shine, senior vice president for programming at Fox News, called the group's actions "sad." "This is nothing more than left-wing outlets stirring up false racism accusations for ratings," he said.


Media Matters spokesperson Karl Frisch blasted O'Reilly's comments as "ignorant and racially charged."


O'Reilly made the statements during a general discussion of race relations with Fox News analyst Juan Williams.


O'Reilly said that African-Americans were "starting to think more and more for themselves" and retreating from the views of Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, whose views, he implied, encourage racial divisiveness.


O'Reilly said everyone at the restaurant was respectful during his dinner with Sharpton, and used his dining experience, as well as an Anita Baker concert he attended recently, as evidence of racial progress.


"The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans," he said of Baker's show. "They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris and Snoop Dogg."


Williams expressed agreement with O'Reilly that many people equate black culture with gangsta rap. "That's right," O'Reilly said. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M.F.-er, I want more iced tea."


For his part, Sharpton was surprised by O'Reilly's comments and says he'll press for an explanation when he appears on the show Wednesday. A spokesperson for Sharpton said O'Reilly did not say anything offensive over dinner.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/bill-o-reilly-harlem-shocker-famed-eatery-sylvia-white-restaurants-article-1.243912#ixzz2aXBovWJy


I think Bill-O keeps forgetting ... everything is recorded and on the Web for the forgetful and ignorant :rofl:

It's funny what White People "think" they know about Black People ... until they actually see for themselves there's little difference ... :rollseyes:

Of course ... if you get all your information for Fix Noise, you'll be just as surprised as Bill-O :laugh:

[Cigar]

Chaps yer ass that you can't tell me what to post. I'm doing good.

:rollseyes: Please keep posting ... and remove all doubt

[Matty]

Bill O'Reilly's Harlem shocker: Famed eatery Sylvia's just like white restaurants


Fox News conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly expressed surprise that there was no difference between eating at Sylvia's - the famed African-American eatery in Harlem - and white-owned restaurants.



After a recent meal, O'Reilly told a radio audience that he "couldn't get over the fact" that there was no difference between the black-run Sylvia's and other restaurants.
"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun," he said. "And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."


O'Reilly had treated civil-rights rabble-rouser Al Sharpton to dinner at Sylvia's to thank him for appearing on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor." The right-wing pundit made the statements on his nationally syndicated radio show last week.


Media Matters for America, a left-wing media watchdog group, has drummed up attention to O'Reilly's statements by sending a transcript and audio clip around on the Internet.


Bill Shine, senior vice president for programming at Fox News, called the group's actions "sad." "This is nothing more than left-wing outlets stirring up false racism accusations for ratings," he said.


Media Matters spokesperson Karl Frisch blasted O'Reilly's comments as "ignorant and racially charged."


O'Reilly made the statements during a general discussion of race relations with Fox News analyst Juan Williams.


O'Reilly said that African-Americans were "starting to think more and more for themselves" and retreating from the views of Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, whose views, he implied, encourage racial divisiveness.


O'Reilly said everyone at the restaurant was respectful during his dinner with Sharpton, and used his dining experience, as well as an Anita Baker concert he attended recently, as evidence of racial progress.











"The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans," he said of Baker's show. "They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris and Snoop Dogg."


Williams expressed agreement with O'Reilly that many people equate black culture with gangsta rap. "That's right," O'Reilly said. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M.F.-er, I want more iced tea."


For his part, Sharpton was surprised by O'Reilly's comments and says he'll press for an explanation when he appears on the show Wednesday. A spokesperson for Sharpton said O'Reilly did not say anything offensive over dinner.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/bill-o-reilly-harlem-shocker-famed-eatery-sylvia-white-restaurants-article-1.243912#ixzz2aXBovWJy


I think Bill-O keeps forgetting ... everything is recorded and on the Web for the forgetful and ignorant :rofl:

It's funny what White People "think" they know about Black People ... until they actually see for themselves there's little difference ... :rollseyes:

Of course ... if you get all your information for Fix Noise, you'll be just as surprised as Bill-O :laugh:











then it must follow that black people don't know jack shit about white people and therefore they're stupid to think they can control what we say and do. Tough innit?

[Dr. Who]

Why punish the child by taking it away from its family?As much as that might seem to be a punishment, is it a kindness to let a child grow up in an impoverished welfare dynasty? Is it a kindness to ensure that the mother will never get off welfare and keep on making stupid decisions in having essentially fatherless children, because she knows society tacitly condones those stupid decisions. How many of these women ever develop any working skills? Despite food stamps, what is the rate of morbid obesity among people living on assistance? Obesity is really a sign of malnourishment. Why doom a child to growing up poor, malnourished and in a dangerous neighborhood where he or she may end up dying before he or she can even make a reasoned decision about his or her life? A single mother with one child can get off welfare. Each additional child makes that more unlikely. Decent childcare is very expensive. Moreover it creates the situation that is so common now, where fatherless boys never learn to take responsibility for their offspring, and fatherless girls have no expectation that they should pick a potential life mate before having a baby. It's like a science experiment gone wrong. Of course if the girl's family can take care of that additional child, or if the mother is sufficiently motivated to obtain employment so that she can properly care for her children, then it can remain with family, but otherwise, more of the same is not working to anyone's benefit in society.

[Chris]

Interesting that you can't refute the hypotheticals and so-called false dichotomies.

I could help you with that, but I won't.

I've already refuted them as non-factual, irrelevant to the Zimmerman case, and non sequiturs.

[Chris]

True. So what is the probability that a bad guy will attack you today? I'd say about as likely as getting struck by lightning. Do you have a lightning rod on your head?

And yet it could happen. That's the problem with your abuse of statistics.

[Bumpkin]

As much as that might seem to be a punishment, is it a kindness to let a child grow up in an impoverished welfare dynasty? Is it a kindness to ensure that the mother will never get off welfare and keep on making stupid decisions in having essentially fatherless children, because she knows society tacitly condones those stupid decisions. How many of these women ever develop any working skills? Despite food stamps, what is the rate of morbid obesity among people living on assistance? Obesity is really a sign of malnourishment. Why doom a child to growing up poor, malnourished and in a dangerous neighborhood where he or she may end up dying before he or she can even make a reasoned decision about his or her life? A single mother with one child can get off welfare. Each additional child makes that more unlikely. Decent childcare is very expensive. Moreover it creates the situation that is so common now, where fatherless boys never learn to take responsibility for their offspring, and fatherless girls have no expectation that they should pick a potential life mate before having a baby. It's like a science experiment gone wrong. Of course if the girl's family can take care of that additional child, or if the mother is sufficiently motivated to obtain employment so that she can properly care for her children, then it can remain with family, but otherwise, more of the same is not working to anyone's benefit in society.

What about women who are poor and have many children but are not on welfare? Should their children be taken from them?

What other situations do you think should result in having children become wards of the state?

[Bumpkin]

I've already refuted them as non-factual, irrelevant to the Zimmerman case, and non sequiturs.

You didn't really refute anything. You said I was wrong but offered no argument. Perhaps you believe your saying it makes it so. Guess again.

[Mainecoons]

Try reading the thread closer.

[nic34]

coonzie to the rescue........

[Bumpkin]

And yet it could happen. That's the problem with your abuse of statistics.

Do you wear a bulletproof vest? If not, why not? After all, someone could shoot you as you are walking into a store.

I'm not abusing statistics. I'm simply pointing out that the chance of you being harmed are very slim.

Everyone has their own level of fear and caution. I am not so afraid that I think I need a gun. You probably don't wear a bulletproof vest.

I'm quite comfortable in realizing the likelihood of my being attacked are so small that I won't bother toting around a gun. Some people need that extra feeling of security. I have no problem with that. Most people are not frightened enough to carry a gun.

And most murders would not have been prevented by someone being armed.

[Ravi]

That's attacking all cons. It was your tag-team buddy.

I specified those who inject racism into everything, not all liberals. I made that point later as well: "I really see little difference between LBJ and those liberals who like Obama interject race into everything just to serve their agenda. --Mind you, I am not saying all liberals, some." http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=336474&viewfull=1#post336474

Nice shot in the dark. Inadvertently you hit marie.

It was attacking all rightwingnutters. Not all cons are nutters but sadly it appears the majority of them are.

[Chris]

You didn't really refute anything. You said I was wrong but offered no argument. Perhaps you believe your saying it makes it so. Guess again.

Ah, but I did. Here's how. Let's start with your claim:


IF he killed him on purpose, he is not qualified to carry a gun.

IF he killed him accidentally, he is not qualified to carry a gun.

You provide no rational, logically objective argument for why the two ifs are the only two possibilities, or for why your then follows from each if. Nothing at all. It is merely a subjective claim.

If truth is subjective, then all I have to do is the same, subjectively claim yours a false dichotomy and non sequitur. Since truth, to you, apparently, is subjective, my subjective opinion must be true.

That leads to an absurdity, a violation of the logical law of noncontradiction.

Q.E.D.

[Agravan]

Bill O'Reilly's Harlem shocker: Famed eatery Sylvia's just like white restaurants


Fox News conservative commentator Bill O'Reilly expressed surprise that there was no difference between eating at Sylvia's - the famed African-American eatery in Harlem - and white-owned restaurants.



After a recent meal, O'Reilly told a radio audience that he "couldn't get over the fact" that there was no difference between the black-run Sylvia's and other restaurants.
"It was like going into an Italian restaurant in an all-white suburb in the sense of people were sitting there, and they were ordering and having fun," he said. "And there wasn't any kind of craziness at all."


O'Reilly had treated civil-rights rabble-rouser Al Sharpton to dinner at Sylvia's to thank him for appearing on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor." The right-wing pundit made the statements on his nationally syndicated radio show last week.


Media Matters for America, a left-wing media watchdog group, has drummed up attention to O'Reilly's statements by sending a transcript and audio clip around on the Internet.


Bill Shine, senior vice president for programming at Fox News, called the group's actions "sad." "This is nothing more than left-wing outlets stirring up false racism accusations for ratings," he said.


Media Matters spokesperson Karl Frisch blasted O'Reilly's comments as "ignorant and racially charged."


O'Reilly made the statements during a general discussion of race relations with Fox News analyst Juan Williams.


O'Reilly said that African-Americans were "starting to think more and more for themselves" and retreating from the views of Sharpton and Jessee Jackson, whose views, he implied, encourage racial divisiveness.


O'Reilly said everyone at the restaurant was respectful during his dinner with Sharpton, and used his dining experience, as well as an Anita Baker concert he attended recently, as evidence of racial progress.


"The band was excellent, but they were dressed in tuxedoes, and this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans," he said of Baker's show. "They think the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris and Snoop Dogg."


Williams expressed agreement with O'Reilly that many people equate black culture with gangsta rap. "That's right," O'Reilly said. "There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, 'M.F.-er, I want more iced tea."


For his part, Sharpton was surprised by O'Reilly's comments and says he'll press for an explanation when he appears on the show Wednesday. A spokesperson for Sharpton said O'Reilly did not say anything offensive over dinner.


Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/bill-o-reilly-harlem-shocker-famed-eatery-sylvia-white-restaurants-article-1.243912#ixzz2aXBovWJy


I think Bill-O keeps forgetting ... everything is recorded and on the Web for the forgetful and ignorant :rofl:

It's funny what White People "think" they know about Black People ... until they actually see for themselves there's little difference ... :rollseyes:

Of course ... if you get all your information for Fix Noise, you'll be just as surprised as Bill-O :laugh:




Old story and out of context, as usual - got anything new??

[Chris]

Do you wear a bulletproof vest? If not, why not? After all, someone could shoot you as you are walking into a store.

I'm not abusing statistics. I'm simply pointing out that the chance of you being harmed are very slim.

Everyone has their own level of fear and caution. I am not so afraid that I think I need a gun. You probably don't wear a bulletproof vest.

I'm quite comfortable in realizing the likelihood of my being attacked are so small that I won't bother toting around a gun. Some people need that extra feeling of security. I have no problem with that. Most people are not frightened enough to carry a gun.

And most murders would not have been prevented by someone being armed.

And what has that to do with the Zimmerman case? Nada. Like I said, hook up with cigar, he's even better at what you're doing. The two of you could really go to town, I'm sure.

[Chris]

It was attacking all rightwingnutters. Not all cons are nutters but sadly it appears the majority of them are.

Same lumping labeling, marie. Nice try though.

[Dr. Who]

i disagree with your assessment... because he knew once he did the civil rights act that democrats would lose the south for a generation. he was being optimistic.

so i'm not quite sure what you base your assessment on, who?LBJ was riding on Kennedy's immense popularity. He knew that by bringing in the Civil Rights Act he would get the black vote from the south, and the vote from all of the more populous liberal states, which were already primed for the change by Kennedy, who introduced the original bill. LBJ was a rampant racist, but the handwriting was on the wall, the civil rights movement was not going to go away and it was in fact gaining momentum. As to the South, a good portion was already voting increasingly Republican since the 1930's, so Johnson considered it potentially lost anyway. Was there a risk - perhaps, but there was a bigger risk of losing all of the voters that Kennedy had garnered by not going forward with the legislation. LBJ did the right thing, but for less than noble reasons.

[Chris]

LBJ was riding on Kennedy's immense popularity. He knew that by bringing in the Civil Rights Act he would get the black vote from the south, and the vote from all of the more populous liberal states, which were already primed for the change by Kennedy, who introduced the original bill. LBJ was a rampant racist, but the handwriting was on the wall, the civil rights movement was not going to go away and it was in fact gaining momentum. As to the South, a good portion was already voting increasingly Republican since the 1930's, so Johnson considered it potentially lost anyway. Was there a risk - perhaps, but there was a bigger risk of losing all of the voters that Kennedy had garnered by not going forward with the legislation. LBJ did the right thing, but for less than noble reasons.

This is exactly why I like discussing and debating politics with you, who, you don't as a liberal deny prior lib/Dem racism, you accept it for what it was, nail it to the wall in rejection, when you call it what it was, rampant racism.

That's personal, not an attack but praise.

[Ravi]

LBJ was riding on Kennedy's immense popularity. He knew that by bringing in the Civil Rights Act he would get the black vote from the south, and the vote from all of the more populous liberal states, which were already primed for the change by Kennedy, who introduced the original bill. LBJ was a rampant racist, but the handwriting was on the wall, the civil rights movement was not going to go away and it was in fact gaining momentum. As to the South, a good portion was already voting increasingly Republican since the 1930's, so Johnson considered it potentially lost anyway. Was there a risk - perhaps, but there was a bigger risk of losing all of the voters that Kennedy had garnered by not going forward with the legislation. LBJ did the right thing, but for less than noble reasons.If he was a rampant racist, which I'd like to see evidence of, then signing the civil rights act was noble along the lines of Lincoln's actions freeing the slaves as he admitted to being a racist.

[Mainecoons]

Here ya go, Marie, although I suspect you already know this and are in your usual denial.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072-i-ll-have-those-niggers-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200


“I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]”But don't worry, he had a lot of company among your Democrats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2484587/posts

LOL

[Chris]

Here ya go, Marie, although I suspect you already know this and are in your usual denial.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072-i-ll-have-those-niggers-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200

[/h]But don't worry, he had a lot of company among your Democrats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2484587/posts

LOL

That was already posted and overlooked.

[Ravi]

Here ya go, Marie, although I suspect you already know this and are in your usual denial.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072-i-ll-have-those-niggers-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200

[/h]But don't worry, he had a lot of company among your Democrats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2484587/posts

LOL
Ah, the unsourced and probably made up quote. So are you telling me that saying the word nigger in those days (or even now) makes one a racist?

[Chris]

Ah, the unsourced and probably made up quote. So are you telling me that saying the word nigger in those days (or even now) makes one a racist?

He sourced it, marie. And it not just the use of the word.

Here's another example:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms

[Cigar]

Ah, the unsourced and probably made up quote. So are you telling me that saying the word nigger in those days (or even now) makes one a racist?

See how easy it is?

I'll have those ignorant, stupid, evangelical bible thumping Southern racist red necks voting Republican for the next 500 years. :laugh:
-Ronald Raygun Reagan-

[Chris]

See how easy it is?

I'll have those ignorant, stupid, evangelical bible thumping Southern racist red necks voting Republican for the next 500 years. :laugh:
-Ronald Raygun Reagan-

The one and only source of that, cigar, made it up.

Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=I'll+have+those+ignorant%2C+stupid%2C+eva ngelical+bible+thumping+Southern+racist+red+necks+ voting+Republican+for+the+next+500+years.&oq=I'll+have+those+ignorant%2C+stupid%2C+evangelic al+bible+thumping+Southern+racist+red+necks+voting +Republican+for+the+next+500+years.&aqs=chrome.0.69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Result: http://www.politicaljack.com/threads/lyndon-b-johnson-prophet.54774/page-2

[Mainecoons]

Ah, the unsourced and probably made up quote. So are you telling me that saying the word nigger in those days (or even now) makes one a racist?

LOL. even for you this is a new standard of denial. :rofl:

[Bumpkin]

Ah, but I did. Here's how. Let's start with your claim:



You provide no rational, logically objective argument for why the two ifs are the only two possibilities, or for why your then follows from each if. Nothing at all. It is merely a subjective claim.

If truth is subjective, then all I have to do is the same, subjectively claim yours a false dichotomy and non sequitur. Since truth, to you, apparently, is subjective, my subjective opinion must be true.

That leads to an absurdity, a violation of the logical law of noncontradiction.

Q.E.D.

You should provide some other possibilities to prove me wrong.

If you need help, let me know. I can do it.

[Ravi]

LOL. even for you this is a new standard of denial. :rofl:Why not answer the question?

[Bumpkin]

Here ya go, Marie, although I suspect you already know this and are in your usual denial.

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/770072-i-ll-have-those-niggers-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200

[/h]But don't worry, he had a lot of company among your Democrats.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2484587/posts

LOL

But he had no company among liberals.

[junie]

See how easy it is?

I'll have those ignorant, stupid, evangelical bible thumping Southern racist red necks voting Republican for the next 500 years. :laugh:
-Ronald Raygun Reagan-




lol just as i suspected!

[junie]

Why not answer the question?



he's prolly too dizzy from all the rolling laughter...

[Chris]

You should provide some other possibilities to prove me wrong.

If you need help, let me know. I can do it.

You made the claim, you provide the argument. I've already demonstrated your argument purely subjective.


And you're once again arguing about arguing about arguing. It just gets to deep. http://img684.imageshack.us/img684/567/1sm074hole.gif Dig yourself out.

[Cigar]

Why not answer the question?

See anyone can Google and post BS ... :laugh:

But you'll not get an answer.

[Chris]

he's prolly too dizzy from all the rolling laughter...

Except he did answer the question, in his initial post, he sourced it. The question was mere denial. And even that was answered.

[Chris]

See anyone can Google and post BS ... :laugh:

But you'll not get an answer.

Yes, you demonstrated you did that. It doesn't follow others do.

[Bumpkin]

You made the claim, you provide the argument. I've already demonstrated your argument purely subjective.




You are saying that I am wrong but you can't prove it. If you are wrong, I can prove it, kid.

[Chris]

You are saying that I am wrong but you can't prove it. If you are wrong, I can prove it, kid.

I proved it: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/15062-How-Do-We-Fix-Race-Relations?p=337238&viewfull=1#post337238. Q.E.D.

[Ravi]

See anyone can Google and post BS ... :laugh:

But you'll not get an answer.
I know because then he'll be shown to be a hypocrite.

[Dr. Who]

Ah, the unsourced and probably made up quote. So are you telling me that saying the word nigger in those days (or even now) makes one a racist?Yes. Here's a recording of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms

[Ravi]

Yes. Here's a recording of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1rIDmDWSms

So again, does saying the word then (or now) make one a racist?

[Ravi]

So again, does saying the word then (or now) make one a racist?Nevermind, I missed your yes answer.

[Mainecoons]

Yes, and then we have the people here who apparently can't look anything up to back up their hack arguments.

:rofl:

[Ravi]

Yes, and then we have the people here who apparently can't look anything up to back up their hack arguments.

:rofl:

I see your yes. Was that in answer to my question?

[junie]

Except he did answer the question, in his initial post, he sourced it. The question was mere denial. And even that was answered.


yet only you are satisfied by that source... is mainecoons your tag team buddy..?




even IF johnson did say it, how does that change what marie said?


"If he was a rampant racist, which I'd like to see evidence of, then signing the civil rights act was noble along the lines of Lincoln's actions freeing the slaves as he admitted to being a racist. "

[junie]

As Wall Street Journal editorial writer Jason Riley has noted, many of FDR’s New Deal redistributionist schemes, such as Social Security and Aid to Families with Dependent Children, had their roots in Republican initiatives, including those of his predecessor, Herbert Hoover.

GOP presidents Nixon and Gerald Ford expanded Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs.

Even Ronald Reagan, a conservative hero, refused to touch Social Security or Medicare. And George W. Bush boosted everything from food stamps to prescription drug coverage.


This didn’t happen in an intellectual vacuum. Conservative intellectuals over the decades criticized the welfare state but mostly on prudential grounds.

Irving Kristol, the founding father of neoconservativism, averred in 1976 that the GOP must “fully reconcile” itself to the welfare state if it were to have a political future


http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/23/the-conservative-welfare-state

[Chris]

yet only you are satisfied by that source... is mainecoons your tag team buddy..?




even IF johnson did say it, how does that change what marie said?


"If he was a rampant racist, which I'd like to see evidence of, then signing the civil rights act was noble along the lines of Lincoln's actions freeing the slaves as he admitted to being a racist. "

Hmm, did you have something with which to dispute it?

[Dr. Who]

yet only you are satisfied by that source... is mainecoons your tag team buddy..?




even IF johnson did say it, how does that change what marie said?


"If he was a rampant racist, which I'd like to see evidence of, then signing the civil rights act was noble along the lines of Lincoln's actions freeing the slaves as he admitted to being a racist. "Nobility requires performing a selfless act, not a self serving one. It doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do, but it doesn't mean that it was done for the right reasons. LBJ was the old fashioned southern racist who didn't hate black people, in fact he liked them, as long as they maintained their place in society. Before becoming Kennedy's running mate he did champion the poor and downtrodden, however that didn't always translate into voting for reforms:

"Johnson's lack of racial consciousness, as such, during his early political career hardly was inconsistent with the outlook of many white liberals. In his formative political experiences during the 1930s and 1940s, Johnson demonstrated a commitment to equal opportunity and fairness that earned him a reputation as a friend of the poor--white or black. As Texas director of the National Youth Administration, Johnson lobbied for equal access to education and vocational training, and as U.S. congressman from the tenth district of Texas, he fought for equal treatment for racial minorities in federal housing and agricultural programs. Yet Johnson also voted against every civil rights bill brought to the floor during his terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, including anti-lynching, anti-poll tax, and Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) measures. He voted against these same measures during his early career in the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 1948. Johnson may have opposed the proposals--as he claimed--because they stood no chance of passage, while voting for them would have cost him his political career. He also emphasized that federal legislation to end lynching and the poll tax would violate the "states' rights," though it is unclear to what extent Johnson believed this commonplace of Southern rhetoric. However, his stated opposition to an anti-lynching bill also revealed his insensitivity to uniquely racial forms of oppression, as Johnson implied that lynching was no different than any other type of murder. And he also claimed that anti-lynching, anti-poll tax, and FEPC legislation was not germane to the issue of civil rights, which he stated should be advanced though measures that would provide for better housing, better education, better health care, and better wages". http://archive.vod.umd.edu/citizen/lbj1965int.htm

I don't think Johnson viewed himself as a racist. It was just so ingrained in him that it nevertheless had an influence on his decisions except where it was politically opportune to act otherwise.

[Agravan]

So again, does saying the word then (or now) make one a racist?
Paula deen said it 30 years ago. Aren't all you libs calling her a racist now?

[Chris]

As to the question does using the n-word imply you are a racist. No.

To me it was LBJ's attitude that he could buy votes.


As to do good ends justify any means. The ends were good, to the degree they prohibit government discrimination, equality before the law. But I don't think that justifies the end. It's a good moral question.

[jillian]

Except he did answer the question, in his initial post, he sourced it. The question was mere denial. And even that was answered.

except his 'source' was nonsense.

[Agravan]

except his 'source' was nonsense.
Because it "goes against what you know"??

[Ravi]

Nobility requires performing a selfless act, not a self serving one. It doesn't change the fact that it was the right thing to do, but it doesn't mean that it was done for the right reasons. LBJ was the old fashioned southern racist who didn't hate black people, in fact he liked them, as long as they maintained their place in society. Before becoming Kennedy's running mate he did champion the poor and downtrodden, however that didn't always translate into voting for reforms:

"Johnson's lack of racial consciousness, as such, during his early political career hardly was inconsistent with the outlook of many white liberals. In his formative political experiences during the 1930s and 1940s, Johnson demonstrated a commitment to equal opportunity and fairness that earned him a reputation as a friend of the poor--white or black. As Texas director of the National Youth Administration, Johnson lobbied for equal access to education and vocational training, and as U.S. congressman from the tenth district of Texas, he fought for equal treatment for racial minorities in federal housing and agricultural programs. Yet Johnson also voted against every civil rights bill brought to the floor during his terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, including anti-lynching, anti-poll tax, and Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) measures. He voted against these same measures during his early career in the U.S. Senate, to which he was elected in 1948. Johnson may have opposed the proposals--as he claimed--because they stood no chance of passage, while voting for them would have cost him his political career. He also emphasized that federal legislation to end lynching and the poll tax would violate the "states' rights," though it is unclear to what extent Johnson believed this commonplace of Southern rhetoric. However, his stated opposition to an anti-lynching bill also revealed his insensitivity to uniquely racial forms of oppression, as Johnson implied that lynching was no different than any other type of murder. And he also claimed that anti-lynching, anti-poll tax, and FEPC legislation was not germane to the issue of civil rights, which he stated should be advanced though measures that would provide for better housing, better education, better health care, and better wages". http://archive.vod.umd.edu/citizen/lbj1965int.htm

I don't think Johnson viewed himself as a racist. It was just so ingrained in him that it nevertheless had an influence on his decisions except where it was politically opportune to act otherwise.
A lot of that stuff you've posted that he believed seems more consistent with today's libertarians and some conservatives. Especially the implying that lynching is no different than any other type of murder. Echoed today regarding hate crimes.

[Ravi]

Paula deen said it 30 years ago. Aren't all you libs calling her a racist now?
Not for saying the word. Her attitude and other comments about black people are what got her labeled a racist.

[Cigar]

Paula deen said it 30 years ago. Aren't all you libs calling her a racist now?

1987 was 26 years ago ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Tbrawley.jpg

[Chris]

except his 'source' was nonsense.

Can you demonstrate that? Mere unsubstantiated opinion is, well, just that.

[Chris]

A lot of that stuff you've posted that he believed seems more consistent with today's libertarians and some conservatives. Especially the implying that lynching is no different than any other type of murder. Echoed today regarding hate crimes.

Can you demonstrate that, Marie? Otherwise it is, well, mere unsubstantiated opinion.

[Agravan]

Not for saying the word. Her attitude and other comments about black people are what got her labeled a racist.
So, if a white man goes around calling them niggers, then you would NOT consider him to be a racist?
Or is this just a temporary reprieve so that you can try to prove LBJ was not a racist in your eyes?

[Agravan]

1987 was 26 years ago ...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/96/Tbrawley.jpg
literalist libtard

[Ravi]

So, if a white man goes around calling them niggers, then you would NOT consider him to be a racist?
Or is this just a temporary reprieve so that you can try to prove LBJ was not a racist in your eyes?It's all about intent.

[Ravi]

Can you demonstrate that, Marie? Otherwise it is, well, mere unsubstantiated opinion.
I already did.

[Agravan]

It's all about intent.

So, go into a black neighborhood and start calling them niggers then. you should be okay, because, as a lib, your intent is to help these poor struggling innocents. Right?

[Ravi]

So, go into a black neighborhood and start calling them niggers then. you should be okay, because, as a lib, your intent is to help these poor struggling innocents. Right?
Why would I do that? If you wish to give it a shot, be my guest and then we will see if we can determine your intent.

[Chris]

I already did.

Uh, where, what post?

[Cigar]

It's all about intent.

I always say, when in doubt, test the theory out in the field.

[Agravan]

Why would I do that? If you wish to give it a shot, be my guest and then we will see if we can determine your intent.
No, because I'm not a libtard idiot who thinks the word nigger is not, in itself, a sign of racism. My intent is to actually help these folks get out of poverty, but not by providing them free stuff.

[nic34]

What free stuff is provided?

[Dr. Who]

A lot of that stuff you've posted that he believed seems more consistent with today's libertarians and some conservatives. Especially the implying that lynching is no different than any other type of murder. Echoed today regarding hate crimes.Perhaps. There is still ingrained racism in society, even among people who don't believe that they are racist. I think that there are both liberals and conservatives alike who honestly don't believe that they racist but actually take a paternalistic attitude to race issues. It may appear differently coming from liberals than from conservatives, with some of the former for example promoting programs that inherently assume that black people are incapable of absorbing education in the same way as whites and the latter viewing issues through a narrow cultural point of view.

[Cigar]

So, go into a black neighborhood and start calling them niggers then. you should be okay, because, as a lib, your intent is to help these poor struggling innocents. Right?

Of call White Boys shorty cracker-ass honkies in front of their Girlfriends :laugh: but somehow I got way with it though. :tongue:

[Cigar]

Perhaps. There is still ingrained racism in society, even among people who don't believe that they are racist. I think that there are both liberals and conservatives alike who honestly don't believe that they racist but actually take a paternalistic attitude to race issues. It may appear differently coming from liberals than from conservatives, with some of the former for example promoting programs that inherently assume that black people are incapable of absorbing education in the same way as whites and the latter viewing issues through a narrow cultural point of view.

I think what's happening is the some people are not feeling special any more and it' bothers them :laugh:

[Chris]

I think what's happening is the some people are not feeling special any more and it' bothers them :laugh:

Do you mean like the special treatment involved in hiring and entrance quotas?

[Bumpkin]

I think what's happening is the some people are not feeling special any more and it' bothers them :laugh:

I think you might be right about that.

[Ravi]

Perhaps. There is still ingrained racism in society, even among people who don't believe that they are racist. I think that there are both liberals and conservatives alike who honestly don't believe that they racist but actually take a paternalistic attitude to race issues. It may appear differently coming from liberals than from conservatives, with some of the former for example promoting programs that inherently assume that black people are incapable of absorbing education in the same way as whites and the latter viewing issues through a narrow cultural point of view.
What programs are those?

[Ravi]

No, because I'm not a libtard idiot who thinks the word nigger is not, in itself, a sign of racism. My intent is to actually help these folks get out of poverty, but not by providing them free stuff.
You aren't making a lot of sense.

[Chris]

A lot of that stuff you've posted that he believed seems more consistent with today's libertarians and some conservatives. Especially the implying that lynching is no different than any other type of murder. Echoed today regarding hate crimes.


Can you demonstrate that, Marie? Otherwise it is, well, mere unsubstantiated opinion.


I already did.


Uh, where, what post?

Forgetting about this, marie?

[Ravi]

Forgetting about this, marie?

No, I just don't want to get into yet another pointless pissing match with you. I gave an example. You are free to form your own opinions.

[Chris]

You said:


(A) A lot of that stuff you've posted that he believed seems more consistent with today's libertarians and some conservatives. (B) Especially the implying that lynching is no different than any other type of murder. Echoed today regarding hate crimes.

You need to demonstrate that (B) is actually a representative example, let alone even an example, of (A).

I'll wait.

Please pee on my leg and call it rain.

[Cigar]

Do you mean like the special treatment involved in hiring and entrance quotas?


Fixing Centuries of Racism doesn't happen over two decades. :wink:

Be patient :grin:

[Chris]

Fixing Centuries of Racism doesn't happen over two decades. :wink:

Be patient :grin:

How do you fix racism with racism?

[Cigar]

How do you fix racism with racism?

It hurts doesn't it ... :wink:

[Chris]

It hurts doesn't it ... :wink:

Actually, no.

[Cigar]

Actually, no.

Then don't worry about ... :wink:, are you having trouble getting into a school?

[Chris]

Then don't worry about ... :wink:, are you having trouble getting into a school?

Again, how does racism fix racism?

[Dr. Who]

What programs are those?Educational programs that lower the level of achievement required to matriculate. Programs that push children from grade to grade without even learning to read.

[Cigar]

Again, how does racism fix racism?

Are YOU being affected by racism ... what quota's are affecting YOU?

[Ravi]

Educational programs that lower the level of achievement required to matriculate. Programs that push children from grade to grade without even learning to read.

I wouldn't say that was race based but if so, that's certainly racist.