On Freedom of Speech

http://www.jeffconews.com/1editorial...-token.subpub=

In the city of Lakewood, about an hour away from me, they're having this publicly-funded art exhibit. On such exhibit sports the quote "A real coward is someone who drops a bomb from a protected space several thousand feet up." Some of you may remember that Bill Maher said this not long after the events of September 11. While it's all good that they can say these things without fear of punishment, it is still a flagrant insult to those who have paid the ultimate sacrifice while flying in their so-called "protected space." Not to mention that the display is paid for with tax money.

Anyway, several citizens demanded that the display be removed, and the city council complied. However, the artist got the ACLU involved, and the display is being returned. The artist is also being given a formal apology.

My question is: should speech be protected when it is paid for with tax dollars or publicly funded? The Constitution basically divides controversial speech into two categories - protected and unprotected speech. Things like obscenity and threats are considered unprotected. Flag burning is considered portected. Should this display be publicly funded, or should it be in a private art exhibit (something I and many others have no qualms with)? Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

And what if someone put up a display that had "Women belong in the kitchen" written on it?

I consider that speech, while being rephrehensible, to be protected. It is an act of peaceful protest. He has the right to state his opinion on current events, no matter how vile.
Yes, I believe that sort of thing should be protected.

I think the "women belong in the kitchen" should also be protected, but it's not - it would be considered "sexual harassment" even though men and women are supposedly equal(if a woman said something similarly derogatory about a man, nothing would happen). Those kinds of things are, I consider, political opinions.
However, you also have to look into the intent. If the "women belong in the kitchen" banner was waved outside of a women's organizational meeting or something, it could be considered a public disturbance - and that should not be protected. However, everybody has a right to have and to state their own opinions in a peaceful manner, which should always be protected.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

I consider that speech, while being rephrehensible, to be protected. It is an act of peaceful protest. He has the right to state his opinion on current events, no matter how vile.
Yes, I believe that sort of thing should be protected.

---

If she wanted to put her exhibit on her front lawn, or march around the streets carrying a sign with that message one it, fine. However, this was on public property, paid for with local taxes. The people who shared that public property had the right to ask the city council to remove it, which they did. The ACLU should not have been involved, since her civil liberties were not being infringed. There is no "right to force the government to display your message."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DocFrance

If she wanted to put her exhibit on her front lawn, or march around the streets carrying a sign with that message one it, fine. However, this was on public property, paid for with local taxes. The people who shared that public property had the right to ask the city council to remove it, which they did. The ACLU should not have been involved, since her civil liberties were not being infringed. There is no "right to force the government to display your message."

---

Oh, so you can only say what you think on your own private property? What next? Removal of free speech from public schools?

Because it was public property, that means that the freedom of speech is in effect. If it was on private property, then there are private rules. Public property follows the rules of the law and the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

What next? Removal of free speech from public schools?

---

There's free speech in public schools?

I think this should be protected. I drive on roads that are paid for with tax dollars, but I don't think I shouldn't be able to have a bumper sticker saying something similar. After all, those are also my tax dollars, as well as the person being discussed in that article.

Last year in my country, a former American citizen erected a sign declaring "America's shame: war criminal re-elected".
This sign angered another former American, who tore it down and was photographed in the act by a local newspaper. When questioned, he said that the sign was the work of "socialist, communist scum" and that he wasn't doing anything wrong by destroying it, merely exercising his "freedom of expression".

No-one's requiring everyone to like what others say. Disagreement is more productive when it is done without destroying what was originally said.[q=DocFrance]Anyway, several citizens demanded that the display be removed, and the city council complied. However, the artist got the ACLU involved, and the display is being returned. The artist is also being given a formal apology.

My question is: should speech be protected when it is paid for with tax dollars or publicly funded?[/q]An interesting question, but in this case I'd have to say "yes". Her work was, originally, given state approval and funding. The removal of her work came later, and it is that act of removal which could count as an erosion of her right to freedom of expression. If she was originally refused permission for the display, then it wouldn't be a problem. She'd be free to express herself through other means. But the removal of her exhibit took away a form of expression she'd already made.

Imagine if a different artist had made a different work with a different message. For instance, something criticising abortion as "mass murder" or defending it as a woman's right to choice. Would we be happy for such a work to be censored? Would the same furore arise? Too often, the emotion of a situation affects our ability to be objective about it. If it becomes acceptable to silence the voices of those who against whom a vociferous few raise a protest, then we'll be allowing extremists to influence what is or is not deemed 'acceptable' by the state.

Quote:

---

Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

---

There are other, better ways to disagree. After the "war criminal" sign incident I mentioned, the man behind the sign - as well as numerous letters to the editor - mentioned that if the disgruntled chap really cared about 'freedom of expression', he could simply have drawn up a sign of his own, disagreeing with what was in the original sign. But instead, he felt that his freedom of expression - as well as his political beliefs - were more valid and more worthy of recognition.

Oops, realized I missed a question.

Quote:

---

Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

---

Asbolutely not. It would be considered destruction of property - a crime.

Should this be protected speech? Hell yeah. Dissent is the backbone of a free society. I am willing to fight for free speech.

Should we have to pay for something with our tax money that we do not support? Ideally, no. But the price you pay for funding artistic endeavors is that somewhere down the line there will be a publicly funded work of art that you don't agree with. The only way to prevent this would be to stop all funding completely, which is ridiculous. Maybe your tax dollars are supporting an artist who expresses opinions you don't agree with, and mine are supporting a war I don't agree with. That's just what happens in such a vast, diverse culture. It's not an ideal situation but it's as fair as it can get without stripping all government programs of funds altogether.

I'm very confused. Was she contracted by the state to make a work? How was her art funded? Was it funded at all, or was it selected to be in the exhibit?

And she doesn't deserve an apology. There's nothing to apologize for. "I'm sorry we moved your rock for a while, but we were forced to put it back, even though we didn't want too. We were also forced to write this letter. Hope it makes you feel better. (Psych!) Love, Us fellers"

But if her art was just sitting there, not hurting anybody and not costing money, then yep, I think it should be left on exhibit. But if she was contracted by the government to do something artistic, well, I'm sure this wouldn't have happened at all. Even if her opinions aren't her own, and belong to that of a mainstream blabber who talks out both sides of his mouth.

If tax dollars weren't spent to create the art, then there's no valid reason for it's removal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fire_of_avalon

If tax dollars weren't spent to create the art, then there's no valid reason for it's removal.

---

And if they were?

I think the state funded the entire exhibit itself - not the individual art stuff. Either way, it hardly matters.

IMO I hate the ACLU, but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. ACLU defends what people say, like what Neo Nazis say, KKK, and what left wing nuts like what Ward Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments. But that signifys what a great country we live in today.

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us. They're not helping at all. They dont even have a plan for fighting the war on terror, so I dont even see how they can say somthing like that.

So as you can see, my opinions are heavily biased against the ACLU...

Quote:

---

Should this display be publicly funded, or should it be in a private art exhibit (something I and many others have no qualms with)? Would it be considered protected speech if I were to drive up to Lakewood and apply my Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to this display?

---

The Sledge Hammer sounds like a good idea, though you might get in trouble. :D

[q=noname]what left wing nuts like what Whinsten Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. [/q]Who? Winston Churchill was England's Prime Minister during the Second World War. Never heard of this Whinsten fellow.

Quote:

---

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional.

---

So if someone believes a law is unconstitutional, they should just put up with it? Like, if the state decides to re-introduce slavery?

Quote:

---

They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us.

---

Opposing oppression and discrimination does not make one a terrorist group.... unless, of course, you believe that the US government is a terrorist group.

Quote:

---

The Sledge Hammer sounds like a good idea, though you might get in trouble.:D

---

How about if someone took a sledge-hammer to a pro-war, pro-conquest, anti-Arab artwork?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big D

[q=noname]what left wing nuts like what Whinsten Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. [/q]Who? Winston Churchill

---

Not the former Prime Minister of England, he's dead. Though his parrot Charlie is still alive and well. :p . Im talking about the Ward Churchill that said comments about 'america deserving 9/11' and he is a Colorado proffesor.

Quote:

---

So if someone believes a law is unconstitutional, they should just put up with it? Like, if the state decides to re-introduce slavery?Opposing oppression and discrimination does not make one a terrorist group.... unless, of course, you believe that the US government is a terrorist group.How about if someone took a sledge-hammer to a pro-war, pro-conquest, anti-Arab artwork?

---

No like I stated, what anyone says wither its the Churchill fellow from Colorado Universty blasting away how 'america deserved 9/11' to what that guy said about the Airforce. You have the right to say it, it just signifies what a great country we live in today.

And I still consider the ACLU a terrorist group, its just that what they did to Donald Rumsfeld filing a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. Im just repeating myself. Its just they dont even have a plan on the war on terror to began with, so what is their say? Enemy combatants deserve lawyers, its unconstitutional to be imprisoned without trial, when they're enemies of war! POWs.

And as far as the ACLU goes, I thought it was a organization apart from the government.

I believe his name is Ward Churchill.

Just a question in passing, was Maher serious or making a joke? He is a comedian, and oftentimes, comedians make statements such as these to provoke or to stimulate, not really to be taken seriously.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LH

And if they were?

---

If they were funded through grant money, then whatever she does with her art is legal, unless it breaks stipulations of the grant contract. If she was contracted by the local government to create something for the public, then her work is technically no longer her own and if the greater amount of that public finds it offensive, then there are legal actions that can be taken to remove it.

If tax dollars were spent to create something for public benefit that the public finds offensive, that is a valid reason for removal. If the artist is awarded a government grant and then exhibits offensive artwork in a public exhibit, there is no valid reason for removal. That's what I meant.

The ACLU ensures that anyone who must have dealings with US law will have those dealings carried out in a reasonable manner similar to that of a US Citizen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by noname

I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments.

---

you must be part of that 50 percent of high schoolers who think that we have to much freedom of speach. not to be offensive but... ARE YOU CRAZY!?

The very reason you are able to make the comments you make on this message board is because you have free speach. If you didnt, and the government didnt like what you said, they could kick down your door and lock you away for voicing your opinion.

Geez, wahts wrong with our generation. Or maybe you like just being told that America is great, and, maybe you dont want to have an opinion of your own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

Just a question in passing, was Maher serious or making a joke? He is a comedian, and oftentimes, comedians make statements such as these to provoke or to stimulate, not really to be taken seriously.

---

He was serious when he said it. What he said was that all the buzz going around that the hijackers were nothing but cowards was wrong. Hijacking a plane and sacrificing your life for what you believe in is not cowardly, so what he said was totally correct. In fact, it takes a lot of courage to sacrifice yourself for your cause, even if it is misguided. In a typical display of ignorance and stupidity that large groups of people are known for, Maher's show was cancelled and his character was torn apart by the media.

OOC:

This paraphrasing people as saying "AMERIKKKA DESRVED 911 LOL!!1" is getting a bit silly. You will have a hard time finding someone who believes that the terrorists were 100% justified in killing a few thousand innocent citizens. I think what you mean is that people believe that America provoked an attack on itself by interjecting into the business of other sovereign nations.

Quote:

---

IMO I hate the ACLU, but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. ACLU defends what people say, like what Neo Nazis say, KKK, and what left wing nuts like what Ward Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc. I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments.

---

Everything you say there scares me, quite literally. Everybody, absolutely everybody, has a right to say what they think in a reasonable manner.

Quote:

---

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us. They're not helping at all

---

Did you just call the ACLU a terrorist group? You've got to be kidding.

Quote:

---

Enemy combatants deserve lawyers, its unconstitutional to be imprisoned without trial, when they're enemies of war! POWs.

---

Ever heard of the Geneva convention?

I'll have a more well thought-out response when I'm not at work. :p

Thanks for all the great responses, guys, even though I don't agree with some of them.

I should not that I also posed this question at a more conservative board that I visit, and, surprisingly, the responses I got were pretty similar.

I'm not trying to say that freedom of speech should be limited (except for unprotected speech, like I already said). Perhaps I came across as saying differently. My beef is that the people of this city didn't want their tax dollars going towards displaying that message, so they petitioned to have it removed. But now the ACLU is forcing the people to continue paying for it. I could really care less about what the message was, now. Idiots have every right in the world to spout of nonense and tripe.

And yes, taking the Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to it would be pretty immature and unlawful. Instead, I should erect a monument right next to it to Capt Lance Sijan, a pilot in Vietnam who died in a POW camp.

Even conservatives have some modicum of sense. Which makes it astounding to consider that they passed the Patriot Act.

49% of Americans are paying taxes towards an administration that they didn't want and don't support.

Welcome to democracy.

[q=noname]I wish freedom of speech was limited, people cant say anti-american comments.
... for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group[/q]So basically... people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with their government? Anyone who doesn't like US foreign policy is a terrorist, and thus deserves to be imprisoned without trial or representation?
Liberal democracy at its finest:rolleyes2

There are many Western countries with less freedom of speech than the US. The United States, to its credit, has had a strong history of promoting individual freedoms. In other countries, however, the tort of defamation prevents people from saying things that portray others in a bad way, unless those things are true or based on a reasonably-held belief. Freedom of speech is limited, insofar as you're not allowed to defame others without risking a lawsuit. The only people with unrestricted freedom of speech are members of parliament speaking under parliamentary privilege, but even then they're open to criticism if they abuse that privilege in order to slander others.

Jesus you guys, your quoting me off the hezzy, when Ive stated after Ive said that,

" but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly" ... "But that signifys what a great country we live in today."

People can say anything they want after all its their ''freedom''.

Quote:

---

you must be part of that 50 percent of high schoolers who think that we have to much freedom of speach. not to be offensive but... ARE YOU CRAZY!?

The very reason you are able to make the comments you make on this message board is because you have free speach. If you didnt, and the government didnt like what you said, they could kick down your door and lock you away for voicing your opinion.

Geez, wahts wrong with our generation. Or maybe you like just being told that America is great, and, maybe you dont want to have an opinion of your own.

---

Yes, maybe you should read my post again, rather then making that assumption. I stated a opinion, and then I said that's why we have are first amendment rights, and anyone can say any damn thing they want these days. And now Im just repeating myself, and this is getting petty.

Quote:

---

My beef is that the people of this city didn't want their tax dollars going towards displaying that message, so they petitioned to have it removed. But now the ACLU is forcing the people to continue paying for it. I could really care less about what the message was, now. Idiots have every right in the world to spout of nonense and tripe.

And yes, taking the Sledge Hammer of Free Speech to it would be pretty immature and unlawful. Instead, I should erect a monument right next to it to Capt Lance Sijan, a pilot in Vietnam who died in a POW camp.

---

I agree. Sounds like a good plan. :thumb:

I just don't see what they're paying for. The exhibit was public, and publically funded, and as far as I can tell, there were no "rules" on what could or could not be exhibited. People aren't paying for the creation of her work, and they're not paying for the exhibition of her work specifically. Should they completely remove her work, it would be basically the same thing as banning her from a public forum or town meeting. A place where tax payers dollars go to work, but everyone is allowed to say what they want.

As I said before, if tax dollars were going directly to the creation of her work for the public good, then there is reason for it to be removed. If she is displaying her work at a public exhibition, which I assume has already been fully funded, then there is no reason whatsoever for it to be removed.

That would be like this. In UNC Chapel Hill, there is an art museum. In this art museum, there are paintings (obviously). A student decides she doesn't like a painting because she feels it portrays women in a negative light. She complains. Do you honestly think the painting should be removed?

This is the same as book burning to me. Even if you don't like art, you've really no right to try and move it aside. Stuff like that makes you think. People don't like to think, even though it's good for them.

And your statue is a marvelous idea. I say go for it.

Quote:

---

IMO I hate the ACLU, but its why we have our first-amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly. ACLU defends what people say, like what Neo Nazis say, KKK, and what left wing nuts like what Ward Churchill says about 'America deserved 9/11' and etc.

---

Quote:

---

The ACLU even filed a lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and for opposing Bush administration anti-terrorism measures that the group believes are unconstitutional. They're a terrorist group, everything they say, and as much as the U.S. government does to protect us. They're not helping at all. They dont even have a plan for fighting the war on terror, so I dont even see how they can say somthing like that.

---

Excuse me while I fall out of my chair laughing. :D :D :D

EDIT: Okay. I'm done. BTW, one of the founding principals of this country is that NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW! That includes the president. And, besides, they also defend speech that they dont agree with, which I respect. Free speech is just that. Deal.

Please use the edit/delete button instead of double posting. ~ShlupQuack

The only speech that should not be protected is the speech that tells people to hurt/discriminate others because of race, sexuality, creed, sexual and religious orientation. Did i miss anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

The only speech that should not be protected is the speech that tells people to hurt/discriminate others because of race, sexuality, creed, sexual and religious orientation.

---

I believe this is protected...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

The only speech that should not be protected is the speech that tells people to hurt/discriminate others because of race, sexuality, creed, sexual and religious orientation. Did i miss anything?

---

...but this is not. I may be mistaken.

It's not. You can tell someone to discriminate. Once they do, however, it's a crime, and you could be a considered an accomplice.

Quote:

---

It's not. You can tell someone to discriminate. Once they do, however, it's a crime, and you could be a considered an accomplice.

---

What? That's just not right. If I told someone that they should descriminate against blacks, and they did it, it would be a crime?

What if I told someone to descriminate against skin heads? If they did that, would it be a crime? And would I also be considered an accomplice? Please... A double standard like that should NOT exist.

(I, personally would never descriminate against blacks, or tell someone to. However, I WOULD descriminate against skin heads, and I would tell people to do it also, without thinking twice. That should not be a crime.)

Quote:

---

What? That's just not right. If I told someone that they should descriminate against blacks, and they did it, it would be a crime?

---

You would be an accomplice. And how is that not right? If you told someone to kill someone else, and they did it, then THAT's a crime, so why not this?

Quote:

---

What if I told someone to descriminate against skin heads? If they did that, would it be a crime? And would I also be considered an accomplice? Please... A double standard like that should NOT exist.

---

Yes, it is a crime. Or at least, should be based on the accomplice statute.

What this all boils down to is the fact that too many people in America don't realize that they do NOT have the right to never be offended. This goes both ways. If somebody had held a public art showing of Christian work, most likely people would protest, and possibly include the ACLU, and the showing would be shut down. But if it was a public showing, and funded by tax dollars, then the only legit way to shut it down would be to look into the rules for such public, tax-funded demonstrations and see if they can find something that violates it. That's it. You're offended, oh too bad, that's not infringing on any of your civil rights. BUT...as I said, this goes both ways. Or, rather, it SHOULD, but it doesn't. You think the government would let a "straight pride" rally march through city streets?

The ACLU has long outlived its usefulness. It no longer protects civil rights, it infringes upon them.

And somebody mentioned freedom of speech in public schools. I agree with the next person, who points out that there is no freedom of speech in public schools anymore.

Quote:

---

The ACLU has long outlived its usefulness. It no longer protects civil rights, it infringes upon them

---

Are you nuts? Please, post an example of the ACLU infringing on civil rights.

Quote:

---

And somebody mentioned freedom of speech in public schools. I agree with the next person, who points out that there is no freedom of speech in public schools anymore.

---

There should be.

Quote:

---

What this all boils down to is the fact that too many people in America don't realize that they do NOT have the right to never be offended.

---

I agree with this whole-heartedly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Are you nuts? Please, post an example of the ACLU infringing on civil rights.

---

Well, for starters, there's their approval of the Japanese-American interment...their support of Micheal Newdow...their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools, which of course are funded by local tax dollars...their work in ensuring that parents don't know if their teenage daughters are getting abortions...their fight to have the government force us to recognize to homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage...and of course their constant efforts to ensure that our tax dollars are going towards extreme liberal causes and nowhere near anything resembling Christianity.

*Japanese-American interment... In World War II, the U.S. government rounded up about a million Japanese immigrants living on the California coast and put 'em into camps. "Just in case." Camps, not too much unlike Jewish camps in Nazi Germany (except the slaughters, of course). Not our finest hour. And the ACLU supported it.

Those good? Any more examples you need of the ACLU infringing on Americans' civil rights?

Quote:

---

.their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools,

---

I don't know about the rest of 'em, but this one's wrong. One school in...Virginia, I think it was, had a disclaimer on their Biology text books that "evolution isn't the only idea out there, and that all should be equally considered and decided upon." Some of the parents in the district sued the school for violation of the Establishment Clause, and the ACLU sided with the school district.

That's one school. There's a county in Georgia (Cobb) that I heard a lot about a while back, and that's certainly not the case. Plus, I just got out of high school a couple years ago, and in most cases the only thing teachers were allowed to teach was Evolutionism. Unless a class member asked them about any other theory, in which case they could explain in brief, but not express their beliefs. And, in many cases, Evolutionism is taught as fact--it's taught that there are some other beliefs, but that Evolutionism has been proven. Which, of course, is completely false, but that doesn't stop 'em.

Either way, they still fight to exclude the mere mention of Creationism in a public school, regardless of how many students in the school believe in it. It is one of the two most popular beliefs in the creation of the universe, and it's illegal for a teacher to mention it.

The ACLU may be one of the fighters, but the US Supreme Court made the rulings. Apparently they think it shouldn't be taught, either.

In Cobb County, Georgia, they sided against the parents and the school district. They won, and the stickers were removed, allowing the school district to teach a convoluted, self-contradictory, and eminently flawed theory which comes into direct opposition with every branch of science as if it were solid fact.

As for the topic-issue:

Yes, you have a right of free speech. You have a right to say whatever you want, no matter how stupid it is. However, you do not have the right to make someone else pay for your speech, and herein is the problem. By making some incredibly stupid statement and then forcing you to pay for it, these people infringe upon our right to free speech--if telling us we may not say things we believe is wrong, isn't it much, much more so to tell us that we must say things we do not believe?

The fellow with the bomber-statement has every right to say that, even if it's an amazingly stupid thing to say. However, I have the right not to pay for it--which means the government has no place at all taking my money and handing it to this guy for the sole purpose of being an idiot.

Likewise, Ward Churchill's First Amendment rights allow him to claim that the victims of 9-11 deserved what they got, to call them "little Eichmanns" (Eichmann was the guy under Hitler who supervised the "Final Solution"), and to claim that the fact the "combat teams" only murdered 3,000 people shows how "merciful" they are. But my right of free speech allows me to not have the government take money from me and use it to fund his flagrant idiocy.

^ Man that guy's good.

Quote:

---

In Cobb County, Georgia, they sided against the parents and the school district. They won, and the stickers were removed, allowing the school district to teach a convoluted, self-contradictory, and eminently flawed theory which comes into direct opposition with every branch of science as if it were solid fact.

---

Woah. So what exactly are they teaching there now?

That would be evolution, which flies in the face of every branch of science from microbiology to simple mathematics, and which Nobel Prize-winners in the study of the theory have admitted doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Plus, I just got out of high school a couple years ago, and in most cases the only thing teachers were allowed to teach was Evolutionism.

---

Evolutionism? Are you talking about Darwinism? :p

You're forgetting something...it's science classes that teach Darwinism, because Darwinism has scientific evidence and support. If you want to learn creationism, you go to church. Even if they did teach creationism in school, who's version would they teach? What text would the follow? It wouldn't work, because it's all about believe: science is about evidence. What about Government classes that teach us that our form of government is the way and communism is wrong? What if I don't believe that? Because it's American Government class, and that's what it's there to teach: American Government. Science classes are there to teach science. I really don't see why so many people have a problem understanding this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

That would be evolution, which flies in the face of every branch of science from microbiology to simple mathematics, and which Nobel Prize-winners in the study of the theory have admitted doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

---

Actually, ever branch of microbiology supports evolution. Hell, common sense supports evolution.

I suggest you read the works of Micheal Behe--being a microbiologist, he can naturally explain it far better than I can.

However, every "leap" of evolution, from proto-cells forming in a 'soup' that would be immediately poisonous to them, to each and every microorganizm from the mitochondria to the flagellum, is basically impossible.

Moreover, common sense does not support the concept that a series of billions of impossible coincidences made us appear from a bunch of rocks. Nor, for that matter, does physics, astronomy, mathematics, biology, geology, geography, anthropology. or any other field of science. As George Wald, winner of the 1967 Nobel Peace Prize in Science, puts it....

"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us to only one other conclusion; that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds (personal reasons); therefore, we choose to believe the impossible; that life arose spontaneously by chance."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Well, for starters, there's their approval of the Japanese-American interment...their support of Micheal Newdow...their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools, which of course are funded by local tax dollars...their work in ensuring that parents don't know if their teenage daughters are getting abortions...their fight to have the government force us to recognize to homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage...and of course their constant efforts to ensure that our tax dollars are going towards extreme liberal causes and nowhere near anything resembling Christianity.

---

Almost all of those are just things the ACLU did that you don't agree with. Please, fighting for the right to same sex marriage is an infringement on civil liberties? The only example you cited that is not immediately inaccurate and has anything to do with civil liberties being infringed upon is supporting the inprisonment of the Japanese on American soil, and based off of your other examples I'm going to declare that one bull :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2 :rolleyes2 until you have a link.

Quote:

---

However, every "leap" of evolution, from proto-cells forming in a 'soup' that would be immediately poisonous to them, to each and every microorganizm from the mitochondria to the flagellum, is basically impossible.

---

Actually, according to Science...Weekly? Or some other scientific journal that's updated a lot, including my Genetics text book last year, scientists have recently been able to link a possible chain from simple atoms -> us. They're proven it's possible.

Last post before I go to bed....

Raistlin--

Quote:

---

They're proven it's possible.

---

And just what kind of odds were a single one of these links? Did they explain, for example, that the "primordial soup" that could have brought about simple amino acids would also have immediately poisoned any life that could have arisen? Did they mention the odds--greater than a million-to-one--of a single protein strand, much less a cell, coming together by chance? Or any of the other millions of million-to-one coincidences, of which the theory of evolution requires millions?

LH--Oh, this is gonna be fun....

Quote:

---

Almost all of those are just things the ACLU did that you don't agree with.

---

Ahh, yes, because government-enforced anti-Christianity is just one of those little quirks.

Quote:

---

Please, fighting for the right to same sex marriage is an infringement on civil liberties?

---

Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly.

Quote:

---

The only example you cited that is not immediately inaccurate and has anything to do with civil liberties being infringed upon is supporting the inprisonment of the Japanese on American soil, and based off of your other examples I'm going to declare that one bull**** until you have a link.

---

You mean like this one here? Got anything else to declare?

And since that just didn't last long enough....

Quote:

---

Dueling quotes:
"You can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." - George W. Bush, 9/25/02
"We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in Sept. 11." - George W. Bush, 9/17/03

---

Is this a result of your failure to realize that terrorism in general and the Sept. 11 attacks are not the same thing, or you lack of knowledge that "dueling" implies that two things are in opposition to each other?

"Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly."

This is a touchy issue to be sure as it mixes a great many things not political, but if America likes to tout itself as the Freedom Loving Capital Of The World, it might want to give a bit more freedom in place of scorn.

"Is this a result of your failure to realize that terrorism in general and the Sept. 11 attacks are not the same thing, or you lack of knowledge that "dueling" implies that two things are in opposition to each other?"

Though I'm just guessing, I believe he was making the point that what Bush said about Saddam was quite a contradiction as he first said that they were linked together then later on said there was no link at all.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly.

---

How the hell would they be forcing anyone to recognize anything? Is the government forcing you to listen to rap music by not making it illegal? Is the government forcing you to watch Queer Eye For The Straight Guy by not ripping it off the air?

I swear, I'll never understand this thought pattern. Is like, some strange form of masochism or something? O__o

OOC:

Quote: Originally Posted by The Redneck Ahh, yes, because government-enforced anti-Christianity is just one of those little quirks. Government forced anti-Christianity? Get a grip in reality. That statement needs no rebuttal, take a look around America for my proof. You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life. Government enforced anti-Christianity would be if "JESUS WAS A LIAR" was printed on all American currency, which brings me to my next point... If you're referring to Newdow, which by the way had nothing to do specifically with Christianity, he was pursuing a position of neutrality*, meaning you're free to believe in your God and teach others about it, but the government does not share that right. Period. Seperation of Church and State is a sticky debate, but it's pretty much cut and dry that it's inappropriate for a government to promote a belief in God as being superior to a lack of belief. *-neutrality as far as the government is concerned, not individual people Quote: Originally Posted by The Redneck Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly. Semantics. Allow me to turn the table and use your wordplay against you. By allowing hetero-marriage, is the government forcing me to recognize something I may or may not want to? No. Are my rights being infringed? No, and if that statement had any credibility to it whatsoever, your flagrant homophobia would turn that upside down. Seriously, that has to be the worst case against homosexual marriage I have heard yet. Quote: Originally Posted by The Redneck You mean like this one here? Got anything else to declare? Conceded. Quote: Originally Posted by The Redneck Is this a result of your failure to realize that terrorism in general and the Sept. 11 attacks are not the same thing, or you lack of knowledge that "dueling" implies that two things are in opposition to each other? In the context of that quote, Dubya was referring to 9/11 as a subset of terrorism. Do your homework.

If you've got any other statements that need correcting, start a new thread about it because it doesn't belong here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

Hell, common sense supports evolution.

---

Thank you!

The ACLU is anti-Christian, eh? Well, lets just check their track record.

Quote:

---

RICHMOND, VA -- Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, Falmouth Waterside Park Manager Brian Robinson has agreed not to prohibit baptisms in Stafford County, the ACLU announced today

---

Quote:

---

NEWARK, NJ-- The State Supreme Court ruled today that a prosecutor violated the New Jersey Constitution when he removed two jurors from a jury pool, one for wearing Muslim religious clothing and another for having engaged in missionary activity.

---

Quote:

---

LINCOLN --The American Civil Liberties Union of Nebraska today announced that it would defend a Presbyterian church from a forced eviction by the city.

---

Quote:

---

RICHMOND, VA--A federal judge has struck down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating, in a challenge filed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell and joined by the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, the group announced today.

---

Any questions?

Quote:

---

Oh yes, I forgot--having the government force the American people to recognize two homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage is right up there with... well, something, certainly.

---

Ummm... interracial marriage, maybe. :mad:

DMKA--
You every apply for a loan? Pay taxes? Get insurance? Then who the government says is or isn't married affects you, and if you're involved in these or any other business transaction, then you must acknowledge a couple as married if the government says they are.

DarkLadyNyara--
Do you really want to start counting pro- and against cases? Because I can have some fun with this one.

LH--

Quote:

---

Government forced anti-Christianity? Get a grip in reality. That statement needs no rebuttal, take a look around America for my proof. You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life.

---

Ahh, so that's why jury decisions are overturned if they had access to Bibles, or mothers are told by the court what they can or can't teach their children regarding Christianity, or cross-burnings and porn are protected speech while "Lord Bless These Students" is unallowed, or why "Jesus Wept" is considered "Hate Speech"... It's one of those secret pro-Christian things, and I'm just too blinded by my bias to see it.

Micheal Newdow has made a living out of anti-Christianity--and you claim I don't have a grip on reality? Take a look at the world around you!

And if you don't want to recognize normal marriage, that's your trouble. Forcing the rest of us to recognize your disorder as something legitimate (and likewise, removing every standard--why not three people? Two people and an animal? A man and his car (it's a beautiful thing)?) is not within your rights, nor is having the government force us to do so for you. As for infringing on any rights--once you move out and have to deal with the real world, you'll end up in some of the transactions I noted to DMKA.

Referring to 9-11 as a 'subset of terrorism'? Weren't you just saying something about semantics, here? Sodom had obvious links to Al-Quaeda and to other venues of terrorism. Sodom did not take part in Sept. 11. Bush said that Sodom and Al-quaeda were linked. And some time later, he said that Sodom did not take part in Sept. 11. Now, if you're trying to reinterpret what he said into something you can attack, then you'd do a whole lot better to just make up some quotes and attribute them to him. Or, you can just do your homework.

Any other corrections you need will have to wait until tomorrow.

"Forcing the rest of us to recognize your disorder as something legitimate (and likewise, removing every standard--why not three people? Two people and an animal? A man and his car (it's a beautiful thing)?) is not within your rights, nor is having the government force us to do so for you."

It is important to point out that this is just your opinion, and not a truth that must be recognized either. When we all begin to believe our opinions as fact, we skirt dangerous territory to be sure.

It's also not within the rights of the government to deny rights to its own citizens by not allowing those who wish to get married to do so. What you're using as examples makes little sense as marriage is between two PEOPLE, not three, not a person and an animal, not a person and a thing, but two PEOPLE.

If you disagree based on religious differences, that is your right. Yet, it is very hypocritcal to say what you believe is right and what others believe is wrong when law and religion should have no part of each other. Perhaps, we should take this slowly, would it be more "fair" to allow homosexuals to have civil unions?

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Sodom had obvious links to Al-Quaeda and to other venues of terrorism.

---

That is blatantly false. Anyone who believes Saddam had links to Al Queda is wrong.

Al Queda and Saddam were of two different religious idealogies, and did not work together. Secondly, a marriage is a contract between two adults, so all this childish 'omfg if gay people get married then people are gonna marry goats' crap is ridiculous. That's I'll all say on this topic, since anything worthwhile has been said already.

Quote:

---

Al Queda and Saddam were of two different religious idealogies, and did not work together.

---

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! I have been saying this for years, but nobody listens!

Quote:

---

Secondly, a marriage is a contract between two adults, so all this childish 'omfg if gay people get married then people are gonna marry goats' crap is ridiculous.

---

I would just like to add that the amount of people who WOULD want to marry a goat in this country is so small a number that it could never become a big deal.

You're welcome, I get the same. They're both led by Muslims, but of two different idealogical ends... I dont know the specifics, but I'm sure it's easy to find.

The 'goat' argument and all similar ones just comes from people who are so closed minded they cant understand anything beyond a heterosexual relationship. All they can see is something as ridiculous as a man and a goat or a woman and a chair. It just doesnt click.

If a man did want to marry a goat, he really couldnt, considering the goat cant enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, a fact that tends to escape some folks.

Quote:

---

Do you really want to start counting pro- and against cases? Because I can have some fun with this one.

---

I don't doubt that, and while I admit that the ACLU does occasionaly go a bit far, they are not anti- christian. They just feel that religion is a personal matter, not a public one.

Quote:

---

If a man did want to marry a goat, he really couldnt, considering the goat cant enter into a contract, which is what marriage is, a fact that tends to escape some folks.

---

THANK YOU!!!

Quote:

---

And if you don't want to recognize normal marriage, that's your trouble. Forcing the rest of us to recognize your disorder as something legitimate (and likewise, removing every standard--why not three people? Two people and an animal? A man and his car (it's a beautiful thing)?) is not within your rights, nor is having the government force us to do so for you. As for infringing on any rights--once you move out and have to deal with the real world, you'll end up in some of the transactions I noted to DMKA.

---

Define normal. The same, and I do mean same arguments were used to pass laws against interracial marriage. As for the disorder comment, don't get me started.

The ACLU has been referred to as "Athiests, Communists, and Liars Unscrupulous" and "Anti-Christian Litigation Union". It would live up to both of those names. Check their entire track record, and you'll see that they have a history of going up against anything Christian--from "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience to nativity scenes in the town park to "happy holidays" and "seasons greetings" instead of people being allowed to say "Merry Christmas".

(First of all, I don't know how to say it simple enough for y'all to figure it out. Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified. Saddam, however, did not have anything to do with 9/11, though Al-Queda did. Like the right hand not knowing what the left is doing...he may have known about it, but didn't play a part in it. nik0tine, if you don't believe that, it doesn't make everybody else wrong, it makes you wrong.)

The Redneck has valid arguments considering what's recognized as a normal marriage. A couple people have pointed out that a marriage is only a union between two "people", and wouldn't ever move anywhere near a union between more than one person, or a person and a non-person. Not too long ago, a marriage was considered a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. One man, one woman, that's a marriage. It it changing now, to a "union between two people". So who's to say the foundation of marriage won't be turned into even more of a joke by allowing more than two people to get married? That's not too far off from letting two guys get married.

LH: "You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life."

That's right. In my personal life, in my home and car, I can be as much of a Christian as I want to be, as long as nobody else that might get offended has to see, hear, or acknowledge it.

"Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified."

Do you have a link or evidence to back that up? This would certainly be news to me.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The ACLU has been referred to as "Athiests, Communists, and Liars Unscrupulous" and "Anti-Christian Litigation Union". It would live up to both of those names. Check their entire track record, and you'll see that they have a history of going up against anything Christian--from "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegience

---

It's hardly "anti-Christian" to suggest that non-Christians should be forced to recite a Christian prayer. 'Separation of church and state' means preventing the state from dictating anyone's religious expression, while allowing every individual to have the freedom to believe and worship as they choose.

Quote:

---

to nativity scenes in the town park to "happy holidays" and "seasons greetings" instead of people being allowed to say "Merry Christmas".

---

That, I agree, is unnecessarily extreme.

Quote:

---

(First of all, I don't know how to say it simple enough for y'all to figure it out. Saddam and Al-Queda were connected. Ties were discovered and verified. Saddam, however, did not have anything to do with 9/11, though Al-Queda did. Like the right hand not knowing what the left is doing...he may have known about it, but didn't play a part in it. nik0tine, if you don't believe that, it doesn't make everybody else wrong, it makes you wrong.)

---

Uh, no. The Bush administration, and its vast intelligence network, have agreed and announced that there never was a connection between Al Qaeda and the Hussein regime. Hussein may well have liked what bin Laden's network was doing, but that's an entirely different matter. Hussein wasn't an Islamic Fundamentalist, so he wasn't exactly a hot ticket as far as Al Qaeda was concerned.

Quote:

---

The Redneck has valid arguments considering what's recognized as a normal marriage. A couple people have pointed out that a marriage is only a union between two "people", and wouldn't ever move anywhere near a union between more than one person, or a person and a non-person. Not too long ago, a marriage was considered a union between a MAN and a WOMAN. One man, one woman, that's a marriage. It it changing now, to a "union between two people". So who's to say the foundation of marriage won't be turned into even more of a joke by allowing more than two people to get married? That's not too far off from letting two guys get married.

---

Some Christians believe it's OK for more than two people to get married.

Quote:

---

LH: "You're free to be as Christian as you want to be in your personal life."

That's right. In my personal life, in my home and car, I can be as much of a Christian as I want to be, as long as nobody else that might get offended has to see, hear, or acknowledge it.

---

No, you have the absolute freedom of religious belief, guaranteed under domestic and international law. The government, however, can't go around promoting your beliefs or telling everyone else to think like you.

Big D: Since when is the Pledge of Allegience a Christian prayer? If children were being made to say a Hail Mary every morning, I could understand your viewpoint. Plus, the kids don't even have to say it--they can sit down through it, not stand up, not put their hand on their heart, not say anything at all, and as long as they're not being an actual disruption (meaning, if they sit down and shut up), the school can't do anything about it.

Yes, some Christians believe bigomy is alright. But that belief has been booted out of most churches, even the Mormon church. The point is, if society's view of marriage has changed from man-woman to man-man, what's going to keep it from changing to man-woman-woman, or man-child? And if we're offended by it, what's to stop people from saying "too bad, that's their right", just like they're doing with gays?

Al-Queda training camps have been found IN Iraq. Camps/schools to train terrorists on the basics of carrying out attacks against "infidels" have been discovered in Iraq. Iraq, if you remember, used to be run by Saddam Hussein. Saddam - Al-Queda, you asked? And by the way, yes, Saddam definitely IS an Islamic extremist.

If the government is going to "protect" other people from being exposed to my religion, why won't they protect my religion? Seperation of Church and State means that the government cannot establish a specific national religion. It doesn't mean that they can support general religion.

Too many people confuse "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Jun16.html
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9836140.htm

Sasquatch, give me ONE reason as to why the government should not allow polygomy.

(Of course, if the government were to allow polygomy, people could not get extra benefeits for marrying multiple people. Don't use that argument, because it's bunk.)

Quote:

---

Saddam definitely IS an Islamic extremist.

---

No he is not. I don't think Saddam would give two sh*ts about islam.

Ugh... had this sucker all typed out, and my browser decided to take a break....

Big D--
No one's forcing anyone to recite a Christian prayer;anyone who wants can opt out of it, and always has been. What pisses these people off is having to hear a Christian prayer.

The Captain--
How about this? Or this, or this, or this, or this, or here, or this, or this?

Nik0tine--

Quote:

---

That is blatantly false. Anyone who believes Saddam had links to Al Queda is wrong.

---

You was sayin'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

DMKA--
You every apply for a loan? Pay taxes? Get insurance? Then who the government says is or isn't married affects you, and if you're involved in these or any other business transaction, then you must acknowledge a couple as married if the government says they are.

---

Yes, as a matter of fact, I HAVE paid taxes, and I HAVE applied for loans, and no, I don't have to acknowledge who's married. I'm 20 years old, and have lived on my own, so please don't just assume you know me. You're name is oh so befitting, as Shadow Nexus already pointed out.

The GOVERNMENT does, however, have an obligation to uphold the rights of individuals. I don't have to acknowledge the fact that people go to church, and worship Jesus, and call other people insane and dumb just for not doing it or doing the same thing with a different god, but the GOVERNMENT has to acknowledge their right to do so.

I still don't understand your thought pattern, and I honestly think it's just some strange form of masochism. :)

"The Captain--
How about this? Or this, or this, or this, or this, or here, or this, or this?"

Good sir, you do realize that half of those links are from news stories two years old and have since been discredited by the Government?

Also:

http://www.inthenationalinterest.com...004Leiken.html

The 9/11 Commission concluded that there was not enough evidence to support such a link.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Big D: Since when is the Pledge of Allegience a Christian prayer? If children were being made to say a Hail Mary every morning, I could understand your viewpoint. Plus, the kids don't even have to say it--they can sit down through it, not stand up, not put their hand on their heart, not say anything at all, and as long as they're not being an actual disruption (meaning, if they sit down and shut up), the school can't do anything about it.

Yes, some Christians believe bigomy is alright. But that belief has been booted out of most churches, even the Mormon church. The point is, if society's view of marriage has changed from man-woman to man-man, what's going to keep it from changing to man-woman-woman, or man-child? And if we're offended by it, what's to stop people from saying "too bad, that's their right", just like they're doing with gays?

Al-Queda training camps have been found IN Iraq. Camps/schools to train terrorists on the basics of carrying out attacks against "infidels" have been discovered in Iraq. Iraq, if you remember, used to be run by Saddam Hussein. Saddam - Al-Queda, you asked? And by the way, yes, Saddam definitely IS an Islamic extremist.

If the government is going to "protect" other people from being exposed to my religion, why won't they protect my religion? Seperation of Church and State means that the government cannot establish a specific national religion. It doesn't mean that they can support general religion.

Too many people confuse "freedom of religion" with "freedom from religion".

---

actually we dont get a choice in rather we say it not.It depends onthe teacher really.IF we get a patriotic bastard we will be forced to say it.I rememebr this one teacher i had the bitch punched me right in the face.School covered it up and lied to my mom.But my mom saw the brushes and we transfered to another school.Plsu im insulted oyu said christains worship mary.When I saw "Hail MAry" I was thinking of that checkers move lol.

But other than that I agree with you completely.People take the seperation from church and state too damn literally.Thatw as put in so religion will be religion and government and politics will be government and politics.That way the two don't mix.But then you have idiots who just come out of nowhere and complain about how they are atheist and the words under god shouldnt be int eh pledge and that schools are a government place.Yes it is government funded thus they found a loop-hole since the amendments aren't that clear on things.

BTW to TheRedneck.A couple can recognize themselves as married thats between the couple and god if they really are married.The government recognizing it is just a thing so they can tax married couples higher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Well, for starters, there's their approval of the Japanese-American interment...their support of Micheal Newdow...their battle to secure Evolutionism as the only possible method of creation (and taught as fact) in public schools, which of course are funded by local tax dollars...their work in ensuring that parents don't know if their teenage daughters are getting abortions...their fight to have the government force us to recognize to homosexuals shacking up together as a legitimate marriage...and of course their constant efforts to ensure that our tax dollars are going towards extreme liberal causes and nowhere near anything resembling Christianity.

*Japanese-American interment... In World War II, the U.S. government rounded up about a million Japanese immigrants living on the California coast and put 'em into camps. "Just in case." Camps, not too much unlike Jewish camps in Nazi Germany (except the slaughters, of course). Not our finest hour. And the ACLU supported it.

Those good? Any more examples you need of the ACLU infringing on Americans' civil rights?

---

I dont agree wiht that statement oyu said.Your saying if im a liberal im not a christain yet im a christain.See your mixing politics with religion. I hate people like that they come up to me and say

"your not a christain unless your a conservative republican."
I say "well dela with it im a christain and im a liberal democrat."

plus im black so that all adds up.

Anyway Government policies shouldn't be based on religion morals but common sense morals.I mean heck the Hebrews were good at keeping some aspects of Government and religion seperate.The way you talk is conservative extremism.You attack the ACLU like people say the NAACP is a racist group for focusing on african americans mainly because they are african americans and we shouldnt have a right to look out for our own since its a dog eat dog world out there.Then someone had the nerve to compare it with the KKK saying they are both on same priniciples saying

"the KKK and NAACP both worked fo rhte advancement of there own race."Yeah thats a bit too dumb a statement but watch some guy come in wanting to be a "smart" guy or just some guy wanting to look good infront of everyone here and say that "The KKK is found ont he same principles as the NAACP And the NAACP is the worst racist group out there and they set a double standard."Despite the fact that they never set a standard and yeah they took up for only black rights so what!! Groups have to come together to be recognized and respected but everyone thats not black feels like they are being left out or something or they wouldn't have gone to the extreme of comparing it with the KKK.ooooo yeah *sarcasm*NAACP sure did lynch lots of them whites..*/sarcasm*.I really have to laugh at the people who did that.You know who you are.

Quote:

---

complain about how they are atheist and the words under god shouldnt be int eh pledge

---

I myself am not athiest. (for the record i am not sure what I believe yet.) But I think the words "under god" should be taken out of the pledge. Why? Because they were NEVER IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH! The origional pledge of allegiance did not have "under god" in it. It was added in the 1950's to promote religion among students in an effort to combat communism. This is just simple brainwashing and it's wrong. In my personal opinion the pledge itself should be banned from school, because it is a form of brainwashing. It is no different from Soviet children having to recite a prayer of thanks to comrade stalin every day of school. (unfortunately, i cannot remember the precise verbage of the prayer, nor can i find it on the internet.)

Quote:

---

and that schools are a government place.

---

School IS a government place. At least, all public schools are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nik0tine

I myself am not athiest. (for the record i am not sure what I believe yet.) But I think the words "under god" should be taken out of the pledge. Why? Because they were NEVER IN THERE TO BEGIN WITH! The origional pledge of allegiance did not have "under god" in it. It was added in the 1950's to promote religion among students in an effort to combat communism. This is just simple brainwashing and it's wrong. In my personal opinion the pledge itself should be banned from school, because it is a form of brainwashing. It is no different from Soviet children having to recite a prayer of thanks to comrade stalin every day of school. (unfortunately, i cannot remember the precise verbage of the prayer, nor can i find it on the internet.)


School IS a government place. At least, all public schools are.

---

All public schools yes they are government funded.Thus someone can complain about it im not arguing against none of this. and when i said that some atheist statement.Meaning i was making reference to an actual court case that did happen and was all over the media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Redneck

In Cobb County, Georgia, they sided against the parents and the school district. They won, and the stickers were removed, allowing the school district to teach a convoluted, self-contradictory, and eminently flawed theory which comes into direct opposition with every branch of science as if it were solid fact.

---

I know you can't read this, but as a graduate of the Cobb County public school system I was personally offended to learn they had allowed these stickers to be put in the biology textbooks. Thankfully I graduated years ago and didn't have to be subjected to this during my time in school. I am embarrassed and the foolishness of the act degrades the value of my diploma.

The Captain -- Even if half of those links are too old for you to think valid (not like that matters anyway), you've still got to consider that half are true. Either way, he's made his point.

lordblazer -- You should get a chance, and the teacher couldn't make you say it. If you don't want to, you don't have to, and there's no punishment the school can give you for it. Plus, I sincerely doubt he punched you, because if he did you would easily be able to have him never get a teaching job again. There would be no "school covered it up"--the school would have no problem with tossing him into the street for punching a kid. Especially with a classroom full of witnesses. Because the next time the teacher punches somebody, and their parents sue, they'll also sue the hell out of the school for not doing anything about the last incident. So I'd put money on no punches.

And I never said that Christians worship Mary. Catholics do (I have a problem with Catholicism). But a "Hail Mary" is a prayer. Ever heard of somebody going to a confession booth (also Catholic) and the priest telling them to say however many Hail Mary's and they'll be forgiven? It's a prayer. ... There's a checkers move called a Hail Mary? The main reference I've heard for it (other than the prayer) is a last-second wishful-thinking pass for the end zone in football.

On to your next post...I never said that liberals can't be Christians. I just said that many liberal stances are non-Christian. Things like, say, abortion, homosexuality, "equal" rights, welfare, etc. It's liberals that have distanced themselves from Christians, not the other way around.

If you want more examples of the differences between liberal viewpoints and Christian viewpoints...you could always look at the case of Ron Harlan, whose course conviction was overturned because the jurors had Bibles in the hotel rooms they were staying in. (That, by the way, was another ACLU case--and people say they're not anti-Christian...) Or, you could look at the liberal judge in Colorado that took a child away from a newly-saved (that means recently converted to Christianity) ex-lesbian woman to give to her ex-girlfriend, then also ruled that the woman couldn't teach her child anything from the Bible that might be construed as "homophobic"... Or even the liberal judge that decided "4/20/99--Jesus Wept" and "God is Love" was "hate speech" and thus deemed inapropriate for a wall of tiles students made for a memorial of the Columbine massacre.

Plus, you of course had to mention that you're black, and immediately after referring to yourself as a Christian, you make the statement, "I hate people like that".

Politicians base their decisions on whatever they believe--whether what they believe comes from a religion or not doesn't make it any more right or wrong. And how were the Hebrews good at keeping government and religion seperate? D'you know Jesus was crucified because claiming He was the Son of God was illegal?

Since you mentioned the NAACP...I got some news for you. You don't have to be white to be racist. The NAACP is much a bunch of racists as the KKK is--not as extreme, no, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. (Could you imagine there being a KKK scholarship or grant given out only to white high school seniors? That wouldn't fly at all. But a NAACP grant meant only for black seniors, that's not racism, that's "equality", right?) I won't say that the NAACP is more racist than the KKK, or that it was founded upon the same principles, because that'd be wrong. The KKK wasn't founded for the advancement of its own race, it was founded to hinder the advancement of other races. There was a time when the NAACP was needed, and it was much needed. But that time has passed, and the NAACP's usefulness with it. There's a difference in "looking out for your own" to try to get everybody a fair share, and "looking out for your own" because "your people" have been "oppressed" for "thousands of years" by "my people" and I need to pay for it now. Equal rights, I'm all for. Affirmative Action, NAACP, that's racist, and it is no more right than the KKK saying we should keep all blacks down "in their places".

And the government recognizing a marriage doesn't just mean they have to pay higher taxes. It means they can claim each other on their insurance, all their benefits, it means they're considered "family", it means a lot more than just more tax money.

Why did you mention comparing the NAACP to the KKK? Why did you even bring up the NAACP? If you're black, you SHOULD dislike them even more than white people do. They're the people that make some people racist against blacks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eestlinc

I know you can't read this, but as a graduate of the Cobb County public school system I was personally offended to learn they had allowed these stickers to be put in the biology textbooks. Thankfully I graduated years ago and didn't have to be subjected to this during my time in school. I am embarrassed and the foolishness of the act degrades the value of my diploma.

---

The stickers that point out that Evolutionism isn't the only theory make you embarrassed and degrade the value of your diploma? As a graduate of the Cobb County, Georgia school system, your diploma isn't worth much anyway, believe me. Or is it the fight and eventual ruling that the stickers had to be removed and students had to be spoon-fed pseudo-scientific dogma rather than knowing that there are other possibilities that degrades the value of your diploma?

"The Captain -- Even if half of those links are too old for you to think valid (not like that matters anyway), you've still got to consider that half are true. Either way, he's made his point."

That doesn't make sense to me. When something has outdated information, isn't it time to disgard it?

My point is that the 9/11 Commission disagrees with the belief that there is a link, and no amount of websites can overturn that decision as it was a bipartisan investigation made by the government.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Captain

My point is that the 9/11 Commission disagrees with the belief that there is a link, and no amount of websites can overturn that decision as it was a bipartisan investigation made by the government.

---

I see. And since Operation Iraqi Freedom was voted on in Congress and passed through both Democrats and Republicans, nobody can say that was wrong too, right? Or did absolutely no Democrats vote for that? Or did they all vote for it, before they voted against it?

What does that have to do with the 9/11 Commission?

Take care all.

Nothing, it has to do with the idea that because the government said it's true, it must be true and nothing else anybody says against it can be true.

You still didn't mention that the 9/11 Commission didn't look into a Saddam/Al-Queda connection. They found no link between Saddam and the September 11 attacks, which nobody was claiming anyway.

You may want to read the report, as it does state several times that there is no working link between the two, not during 9/11, nor any other time that they could find credible sources for.

"Nothing, it has to do with the idea that because the government said it's true, it must be true and nothing else anybody says against it can be true"

So, in using that logic, why should we believe it when the government says there is a link?

So, you're saying you don't always trust your government either? Good, I'm glad we agree there.

Don't misunderstand me, I respect your beliefs, I try to see and understand your side by looking over the evidence provided. I only ask the very same in return.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

And I never said that Christians worship Mary. Catholics do (I have a problem with Catholicism).

---

You do not understand Catholicism. Period.

Quote:

---

On to your next post...I never said that liberals can't be Christians. I just said that many liberal stances are non-Christian

---

Oh please. You need to re read your bible. Welfare is an anti christian idea? I always though Jesus was in favor of helping people.

It seems to me that Republican ideology is anti christian. (aside from the anti abortion stance) Jesus certainly doesn't support the death penalty. Im not sure Jesus would be a big fan of big business either. He's most certainly not a fan of war.

I know Jesus believed in tolerance, compassion, and kindness. Also, what makes you think that "equal rights" are not a christian ideal? You CANNOT apply this logic to anything other than women. It also makes no sense to me why Jesus wouldn't be supportive of more freedom as opposed to limited freedom.

nik0tine I think where some people get jesus as being for the death penality is the old "eye for an eye" or some such.. or at least I always get refered to the nearest bible when someone mentions that phrase so I am guessing it is in there... I may have read some of the bible.. but that is pretty dull reading.. and I never did finish.. maybe I should re-reread it.

Anyways i probably wouldn't recall anything from it after a few years.. so I don't know if I should bother.. I pick up quite a bit of bible-lore from other sources.

If you believe in the bible, jesus most certainly would NOT stand for the eye for an eye philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

nik0tine I think where some people get jesus as being for the death penality is the old "eye for an eye" or some such.. or at least I always get refered to the nearest bible when someone mentions that phrase so I am guessing it is in there... I may have read some of the bible.. but that is pretty dull reading.. and I never did finish.. maybe I should re-reread it.

Anyways i probably wouldn't recall anything from it after a few years.. so I don't know if I should bother.. I pick up quite a bit of bible-lore from other sources.

---

yeah thats an insult jesus would never do htat.Just idiots.Why does jesus oppose the death penalty like most christains should!!!! Because Jesus was an innocent man who felll pray to the death penalty.He died on Friday.Rose today.

The ye for an eye philosophy is none other than Hammurabi's doing.You should read some of his laws they were really really really crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Since you mentioned the NAACP...I got some news for you. You don't have to be white to be racist. The NAACP is much a bunch of racists as the KKK is--not as extreme, no, but that doesn't mean they're not racist. (Could you imagine there being a KKK scholarship or grant given out only to white high school seniors? That wouldn't fly at all. But a NAACP grant meant only for black seniors, that's not racism, that's "equality", right?) I won't say that the NAACP is more racist than the KKK, or that it was founded upon the same principles, because that'd be wrong. The KKK wasn't founded for the advancement of its own race, it was founded to hinder the advancement of other races. There was a time when the NAACP was needed, and it was much needed. But that time has passed, and the NAACP's usefulness with it. There's a difference in "looking out for your own" to try to get everybody a fair share, and "looking out for your own" because "your people" have been "oppressed" for "thousands of years" by "my people" and I need to pay for it now. Equal rights, I'm all for. Affirmative Action, NAACP, that's racist, and it is no more right than the KKK saying we should keep all blacks down "in their places".

And the government recognizing a marriage doesn't just mean they have to pay higher taxes. It means they can claim each other on their insurance, all their benefits, it means they're considered "family", it means a lot more than just more tax money.

---

Well its the NAACP's money, why cant they give it to whoever they want??? IF the KKK decides to give away scholarships, its their money let them give it to whoever they want. An who said it was about "equality", National Association for the Advancement of Coloered People, that basically excludes white people, though it includes more races than the NAACP currently represents. That means they are specifically trying to advance black people in todays soiety, bcause they dont feel that we are equal yet. I definately wouldnt put them in the category as the KKK, not even close.

I totally agree on the second part, its about alot more than just money its about being recognized as a family in todays society, both moraly and legally.

(*Change subject*)

The old testiment doesnt say the death penalty is wrong though, Jesus may have disagreed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Bible: Deuteronomy 21:22

And if a man have committed a sin worthy of death and he be put to death and thou hang him from a tree.

---

(*Change Subject*)
About the ACLU, well theres this clause called "Seperation of Church and State", that doesnt mean sometimes, or most of the time, or occasionally, thats means ALL the time. NO specific religion is to be honored.

The Captain -- "So, in using that logic, why should we believe it when the government says there is a link?"

I was using your logic. I don't agree with it. Did you not catch the sarcasm there?

nik0tine -- "You do not understand Catholicism. Period....Oh please. You need to re read your bible. Welfare is an anti christian idea?...Jesus certainly doesn't support the death penalty....Also, what makes you think that "equal rights" are not a christian ideal?"

First of all, I have read my Bible backwards and forwards, so I would suggest that you would not make an attempt to comment on my supposed "ignorance" of anything in it, especially when you quite often do not know or understand the Bible yourself....That being said, I would not doubt a bit that I understand Catholicism more than you do, seeing as I used to be Catholic. Catholics pray to Mary, and that's not from the Bible, that's from the church. Catholicism does that quite often, which is why I have a problem with it. If you don't understand that, you can look into it, but I know better....The idea of stealing money from one class of citizens to give to another is completely different than charity and "helping people". Nobody mentioned the death penalty, but if it makes you feel any better, the only reason I support it is because our justice system is severely flawed and it keeps those convicts from getting out and killing again, which has happened many, many times. As for "equal" rights...See how I put quotation marks around "equal"? See, that would reflect some type of sarcasm. As in, liberals don't fight for equal rights anymore, they fight for special rights for select groups of minorities while ignoring white males. And nobody that knows what they're talking about can disagree with that--minorities and females have more chances for everything in America than do white males. Equal rights, yes, that wouldn't conflict with Christianity at all, but the "equality" that liberals are fighting for has nothing to do with actual equality.

CloudSquallandZidane -- "Well its the NAACP's money, why cant they give it to whoever they want??? IF the KKK decides to give away scholarships, its their money let them give it to whoever they want....About the ACLU, well theres this clause called "Seperation of Church and State"..."

Because it's not just the NAACP's money, it's taxpayer's money. If the NAACP never got a cent from the government and ran completely off charity, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Plus, they are an influential part of society, and you know as well as I do that a KKK scholarship would NEVER be given out in a public, government, tax-funded school system, because it's too discriminatory. Discriminate against white people, that's fine, but against blacks, that's evil and racist. Here's something for you--it's the KKK's money, why can't they use it to buy firearms, then register them and give them to white people in highly black communities? Would that not be a little racist? Necessary, maybe, but still...

And about the clause you mentioned...it's called the Establishment Clause. And don't feel bad because you don't understand it or know much about it, you fit right in with most people here. Tell you what--why don't you go to a site with the Constitution on it, look up the Establishment Clause, and then come back and tell me what it really says about separation of church and state? Because it doesn't say church and state should be kept separate at all, it only says that the government cannot establish a state religion.

That still doesn't answer the point that the 9/11 Commission found no evidence of a link.

Take care all.

Because there was no link between Saddam and 9/11.

Could you post a credible source that says the 9/11 Commission actually researched possible connections between Saddam and Al-Queda, and found none at all? (And if you expect me to believe something from a news source you quote, I would also expect you to believe my source, even if it's from Fox News.)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3812351.stm

http://www.9-11commission.gov/

After you click on this link, click on "public report" and then "Complete 9/11 Commission Report" and it should come up. It's a long read, though.

Hope that helps.

Take care all.

This is 585 pages. Could you point to a page, or a section, that mentions the lack of a connection between Saddam and Al-Queda?

Section 10:

10.3 "Phase Two" and the Question of Iraq

Page 10.


Take care all.

Quote:

---

Catholics pray to Mary

---

Pray, not worship, my friend.

(I grew up in a Catholic household, btw)

Quote:

---

The idea of stealing money from one class of citizens to give to another is completely different than charity and "helping people".

---

I will agree that the welfare system is flawed, but welfare could be fixed. It is not 'stealing' from one class of people, either. If that were the case, taxes themselves would be considered stealing. So then could you please provide me with a better explanation as to why Jesus would be against a welfare system?

Quote:

---

Nobody mentioned the death penalty, blah blah blah

---

I re read my post and that did not need to be there, and I do not know why I included it. It most likely had to do with an unorganized thought process. I concede defeat for that one.

Quote:

---

As for "equal" rights...See how I put quotation marks around "equal"? See, that would reflect some type of sarcasm. As in, liberals don't fight for equal rights anymore, they fight for special rights for select groups of minorities while ignoring white males. And nobody that knows what they're talking about can disagree with that--minorities and females have more chances for everything in America than do white males.

---

First of all, it's difficult to know that you were being sarcastic, just because you had quotations around a word.
Personally, I think equal rights have been, for the most part, attained. However, the "equal rights" battle of today is just guise. It's there to attract minority votes and that is all.
Also, you seriously believe that women and minorities have a better chance at everything in America than white males? Please... The richest of the rich in this country are white males. Not white women, not black men, but white males. The vast majority of this countries CEO's are white males. These are the people who have power. Don't white males are at a disadvantage in this world, becuase that is obviously untrue. I would really like to see your reasoning behind that statement.

actualy we just studied some of this in school nik0tine.

who has the most chance to travel up in social class? White males.

Who is more likely to get elected president? White males

etc... etc... White males still have alot of advantages.. although reversed discrimination is right either.

However our teacher explained to us that originally affirmitive action was only supposed to activate when two people of equal skill came in.. then it would defer to the minority rather then the white. Quota's and such arent' right when it reverse discriminates.. but in sense it is there to protect from discrimination.

The question is, do we still need to protect minorities from discrimination? That I am not sure of... in today's world of profit.. I am certian companies and such would still take in a skilled black man over a unskilled white man. But yet... some may not adhere.

And how did we get here from freedom of speech???


anyways back to the original topic... Please keep a organized pray time out of school. Peer presure is strong in school systems.. and this woudl just give another reason for bullying to start. "well teacher, he sat out during prayer time, he is a heathen that deserves a good beating" or some such nonsense, I could easily see coming out.

Quote:

---

"well teacher, he sat out during prayer time, he is a heathen that deserves a good beating" or some such nonsense, I could easily see coming out.

---

You and me both. :mad: I have no problem with independant prayer, but when it is organized, it opens up a huge set of problems.

Quote:

---

Who is more likely to get elected president? White males

---

That's obvious. It'll be YEARS before a black person is elected president. I won't say that a woman won't be president, because Hilary Clinton does have a chance. However, I assure you, a black woman will NEVER be president.

Precicely. So muce for "reverse discrimination", eh?

Affirmative Action doesn't mean taking the minority out of two equally qualified candidates, it means quotas. "You must have this many percent of your workforce be this certain minority or we'll sue." (Particularly the NAACP.) Even so, out of two "equally qualified" (no two people are perfectly equally qualified) candidates, what says the minority should get the job? Affirmative Action forces employers to take less qualified candidates based solely on their skin color.

Who's more likely to get into college based on race/sex? Not white males.

Who's more likely to not only get into college, but get much more money and opportunities for college, based on race/sex? Not white males.

Who's more likely to get a job in most places, based on race/sex? Not white males.

And who's the most likely to sue based on allegations of racism or sexism? Not white males.

There hasn't been a black or female president yet because nobody black or female has been worth voting for. If you'll remember correctly, we have had people on the ballot that weren't white males. And I believe that Hillary will run for the Dems in '08, which would probably mean that the Reps would have to put up Condi Rice. White woman president, or black woman president.

And the reason white men are the CEOs and richest people in this country is that, for one thing, equal rights is something that's only been accomplished in the last decade or so, and for another, those white men did what they needed to do so that they deserved to make the money, or run the company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Affirmative Action doesn't mean taking the minority out of two equally qualified candidates, it means quotas. "You must have this many percent of your workforce be this certain minority or we'll sue." (Particularly the NAACP.) Even so, out of two "equally qualified" (no two people are perfectly equally qualified) candidates, what says the minority should get the job? Affirmative Action forces employers to take less qualified candidates based solely on their skin color.

Who's more likely to get into college based on race/sex? Not white males.

Who's more likely to not only get into college, but get much more money and opportunities for college, based on race/sex? Not white males.

Who's more likely to get a job in most places, based on race/sex? Not white males.

And who's the most likely to sue based on allegations of racism or sexism? Not white males.

---

And what are you trying to say? That the last 200 and some odd years haven't happened?

Come to where I live, and you'd see EXACTLY why we still have, and need Affirmative Action.

I'm not trying to say they didn't happen, I'm trying to say that they don't matter now. It just ain't right to let somebody have a job on the sole principle of "his ancestors MAY have been abused".

I don't know where you live, but I have lived a lot of places, and things like Affirmative Action only hurt things and caused more racism.

Quote:

---

I'm not trying to say they didn't happen, I'm trying to say that they don't matter now. It just ain't right to let somebody have a job on the sole principle of "his ancestors MAY have been abused".

---

True. I personaly feel that socio-economic class is more important than race, but the fact is that minorities tend to be on the low end of the economic ladder. Oh, and that "MAY have been abused" is just a bit offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

"MAY have been abused" is just a bit offensive.

---

Just because you are black does not me your personal family was enslaved.

On that note I call for affirmative action to extend to white guys that pretend to be black.

Quote:

---

Just because you are black does not me your personal family was enslaved.

---

At risk of pointing out the obvious, I KNOW. :mad: That doesn't mean people wont still be offended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TasteyPies

Just because you are black does not me your personal family was enslaved.

On that note I call for affirmative action to extend to white guys that pretend to be black.

---

AA is necessary but really most minorities work twice as hard as a white person to get to wear they want to be in life.So really no one really benefits from it but no one is disadvantaged from it.

AlsoI need to bring up NAACP.Someone compared it to the KKK which is just really really dumb.NAACP does work for the advancement of coloured folks such as myself.But to go off saying that its the same as the KKK and it shouldnt be there is stupid.It has to be there or really My life gets way harder which is already harder than a white male's life because the world views me as a black male.NAACP was and is still needed for a lot of things.I understand if you guys have a problem with it working for the advancement of only black people.Whats wrong with that.Thats saying black people can't unite to gain good status in society.NAACP isn't racist.Now the KKK on the other hand was formed after the civil war.Kinda died down until the 1920s.What amkes them waaaayyy too different from the NAACP.Is the fact that it never did stood for the advancement of its own people our even its members.It was a hate group one on one.They killed foreigner's blacks jews and native americans. They killed them because they blamed those groups for taking there jobs.Just like you guys are complaining about a black person taking your job then blaming it on AA.Which you probaly never had the job and he was the better applicant.Back to KKK.The KKK is really too dynamic.The whole purpose of it was to take things into there own hands and hinder minorities to really live a honest life and be equal in status with them.They didn't want that.Thats what makes them different frm the NAACP.Fo the fact that 1.its racist and a hate group and 2.It just ran off the purpose of hate and thats why its barely alive today because there isn't really a group of people they can just hate and when theres nothing to hate then there numbers shrink.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'm not trying to say they didn't happen, I'm trying to say that they don't matter now. It just ain't right to let somebody have a job on the sole principle of "his ancestors MAY have been abused".

I don't know where you live, but I have lived a lot of places, and things like Affirmative Action only hurt things and caused more racism.

---

I agree that people shouldn't get a job because they're black, or white, or hispanic, or a woman, or gay, or a former foster child, or because their grandma was a house slave for my uncle's cousin's boyfriend's great grandfather in law, but rather for who's the most qualified, despite anything else. But you know what? Alot of people wouldn't be able to get jobs without affirmative action. Why? Because of areas like this.

Do I think the pricipal of Affirmative Action is rediculous? Of course. Anyone in their right mind would. Do I think it's exsistence is rediculous? Hardly. It's necessary, period.

And my point about the last 200 and some odd years was that people say the NAACP and Affirmative action is nothing but racism against white people, but they so conviniently forget why those things were invented in the first place. Have they served their purposes and are no longer needed? That's up to you to judge, but I can tell you from what I see everyday that this is NOT the case.

But believe me, I wish we could do away with it as much as you do, without disadvantaging minorities that only have jobs because of it. =/

lordblazer...hahaha. You were the first one to bring up the NAACP and the KKK, slick. And you're the only one comparing the two.

I don't care if "may have been abused" is offensive. It's accurate. There's no way of knowing whether or not one black person's ancestors were slaves to white people or not. And even so, there wouldn't be a way of knowing whether or not my ancestors owned slaves, or whether or not my ancestors owned his ancestors. And unless my ancestors owned his ancestors, I would have nothing to do with anything about him. And in all honesty, unless I personally persecuted HIM, I wouldn't be obligated to give up a job I'm better qualified for as a for of "retribution". Hell, I can trace my geneology back to the American colonies and earlier, does that mean that one of my ancestors was scalped and now every Indian owes me their job?

lordblazer -- Your life isn't hard "because the world views you as a black male". Your life is hard because YOU view you as a black male, and are too busy pitying yourself because of that to have the ethic to go out and work just like everybody else. Minorities don't have to work any harder than white males at all in America. You say nobody benefits from Affirmative Action? How about the minorities that are given jobs based not on their qualifications, but because the employer needs them so he can reach his quota of minority workers? And nobody is disadvantaged from it? What about the guy that's well-qualified for a job but doesn't get it because his skin is white?

You say the NAACP isn't racist? You're got to count in all the people that speak for it--people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. People that play the race card at every single imagineable opportunity. People that say things like, "O.J. Simpson isn't guilty, a white man murdered those two people, they're just trying to pin it on O.J. because he's a successful black man." Or comparing Micheal Jackson's court case to Nelson Mandella and Mohammed Ali. Because Micheal Jackson is black--and you know, it's only because he's black that people are "persecuting" him. The NAACP is a big supporter of things like Affirmative Action, which is racist, and is against common-sense things, like "there are too many black people in prison." Well sorry NAACP, that's because there are too many black criminals.

As for the NAACP vs. the KKK, they're both racist. (Do you know anything about the Black Panthers?) But nobody is trying to say the NAACP is as bad as the KKK, because we all know the history behind both of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

lordblazer...hahaha. You were the first one to bring up the NAACP and the KKK, slick. And you're the only one comparing the two.

I don't care if "may have been abused" is offensive. It's accurate. There's no way of knowing whether or not one black person's ancestors were slaves to white people or not. And even so, there wouldn't be a way of knowing whether or not my ancestors owned slaves, or whether or not my ancestors owned his ancestors. And unless my ancestors owned his ancestors, I would have nothing to do with anything about him. And in all honesty, unless I personally persecuted HIM, I wouldn't be obligated to give up a job I'm better qualified for as a for of "retribution". Hell, I can trace my geneology back to the American colonies and earlier, does that mean that one of my ancestors was scalped and now every Indian owes me their job?

lordblazer -- Your life isn't hard "because the world views you as a black male". Your life is hard because YOU view you as a black male, and are too busy pitying yourself because of that to have the ethic to go out and work just like everybody else. Minorities don't have to work any harder than white males at all in America. You say nobody benefits from Affirmative Action? How about the minorities that are given jobs based not on their qualifications, but because the employer needs them so he can reach his quota of minority workers? And nobody is disadvantaged from it? What about the guy that's well-qualified for a job but doesn't get it because his skin is white?

You say the NAACP isn't racist? You're got to count in all the people that speak for it--people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. People that play the race card at every single imagineable opportunity. People that say things like, "O.J. Simpson isn't guilty, a white man murdered those two people, they're just trying to pin it on O.J. because he's a successful black man." Or comparing Micheal Jackson's court case to Nelson Mandella and Mohammed Ali. Because Micheal Jackson is black--and you know, it's only because he's black that people are "persecuting" him. The NAACP is a big supporter of things like Affirmative Action, which is racist, and is against common-sense things, like "there are too many black people in prison." Well sorry NAACP, that's because there are too many black criminals.

As for the NAACP vs. the KKK, they're both racist. (Do you know anything about the Black Panthers?) But nobody is trying to say the NAACP is as bad as the KKK, because we all know the history behind both of them.

---

WEll actually i was just bringing up from my previous thread. were Emerald said that comment and everyone agreed with her so i cleared a fear things up.

BTW when a black male does goto court most likely they're going to prison rather they did it or not.The justice system is famous for that.Anyway so what they play the race card.I do know a lot about hte black panther' I had a family member thatw as in it.The black Panthers is a seperate group from the NAACP that uses violence.or used violence.They really don't even exist since the NAACP actually achieved a lot of goals and the black panthers did a lot also.They fought so that really anyone can have a chance to open up more doors legally instead of illegally like the black panthers were doing.But since im a racist for supporting the NAACP well then I really can't say much.Oh nvm everyone is a racist then because every single group is put into some negetive category.

but okay when you say my life isn't as hard because I view that way.Is like telling a holocaust survivor that what they experienced was an illusion.

You're a black guy in America. You and Holocaust survivors have absolutely nothing in common, it's a shame and disgraceful that you even try to compare yourself to them. Plus, you know nothing of what black people faced in the 60s during the civil rights struggle. What, somebody calls you "the N word" and all of the sudden you're "persecuted"?

BTW. When a black person goes to court, they get just as fair of a trial as everybody else. Being black has nothing to do with whether or not they are convicted--being guilty controls that, plus their counsel, and they get the same counsel as everybody else too. So don't even try the "the justice system hates black people", because black people that are convicted are the first ones to appeal on the grounds of their jury having too many white people, even if it's not even half.

Remember Rodney King? I'm sure you do--may not remember him, but I'm sure you know about him. He was so high on PCP that they stuck him with a tazer, what, three times? Four? And it had no effect? He led them on a half-hour chase through city streets with total disregard and disrespect for authority or the safety of those around him, and then fought with the police when they finally stopped him. I say he deserved to get his ass beat, I would have too, given the chance. Not because he was black, but because he deserved it. Now--do you remember Reginald Denny? Probably not. He was a guy who was beat nearly to death during the L.A. race riots. Wrong place, wrong time. Reginald Denny was a white truck driver, not disobeying any laws, when he drove past a bunch of black guys. They chased him down, drug him out of his cab, and beat him within an inch of his life. It was videotaped. Not a police video, either, that's mounted in a car, somebody actually held a camera through this whole thing to tape it. Do you know how many people were put in prison for that? How many people were held accountable for that?

I didn't say you were a racist for supporting the NAACP, and I didn't say that everybody was a racist. I said that the NAACP is racist.

And the Black Panthers, at that time, were more active and much more destructive than the KKK was. Are you saying that's alright, because they got things done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You're a black guy in America. You and Holocaust survivors have absolutely nothing in common, it's a shame and disgraceful that you even try to compare yourself to them. Plus, you know nothing of what black people faced in the 60s during the civil rights struggle. What, somebody calls you "the N word" and all of the sudden you're "persecuted"?

---

So your basically saying that if a black person gets called a nigger, we should just accept it because we are too young to have gone through the civil rights stuggle. Thats BS and you know it. No one should just have to accpet someone being racist towards them. no one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

BTW. When a black person goes to court, they get just as fair of a trial as everybody else. Being black has nothing to do with whether or not they are convicted--being guilty controls that, plus their counsel, and they get the same counsel as everybody else too. So don't even try the "the justice system hates black people", because black people that are convicted are the first ones to appeal on the grounds of their jury having too many white people, even if it's not even half.

---

Thats BS as well. Black people definately do not get a fair chance in court alot of the time. The only time a black person gets off for a serious crime is if he's rich. Other than that, we gotta struggle to prove ourselves innocent. Its supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, but for a young black male, its your guilty until proven innocent. But obvioulsly you wouldnt know about stuff like that. seeing as how i assume your not black and probably have never been through the courts for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Remember Rodney King? I'm sure you do--may not remember him, but I'm sure you know about him. He was so high on PCP that they stuck him with a tazer, what, three times? Four? And it had no effect? He led them on a half-hour chase through city streets with total disregard and disrespect for authority or the safety of those around him, and then fought with the police when they finally stopped him. I say he deserved to get his ass beat, I would have too, given the chance. Not because he was black, but because he deserved it.

---

Yeah i remember rodney king and even if he did all those things while high on drugs, the police had no right to continue to beat him down like that. He was already subdued and all they had to do was cuff him and put him in the police cruser, but like the VIDEO EVIDENCE showed, they continued to beat him him down like a dog. Excessive violence and obviously a jury saw it that way as well. Too bad a black man needs concrete evidence like video to make a point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Now--do you remember Reginald Denny? Probably not. He was a guy who was beat nearly to death during the L.A. race riots. Wrong place, wrong time. Reginald Denny was a white truck driver, not disobeying any laws, when he drove past a bunch of black guys. They chased him down, drug him out of his cab, and beat him within an inch of his life. It was videotaped. Not a police video, either, that's mounted in a car, somebody actually held a camera through this whole thing to tape it. Do you know how many people were put in prison for that? How many people were held accountable for that?

---

I dont really rememer this, but its pretty sad. It was probably some type of retaliation thing over the rodney king scandal, but that doesnt make it right. i feel sorry for that man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

And the Black Panthers, at that time, were more active and much more destructive than the KKK was. Are you saying that's alright, because they got things done?

---

Yeah right. the black panthers werent out lynching white folks now where they. They were violent, yes i agree, but not to the point of saying they were worst than the KKK. You can only oppress a people for so long. Black folks were tired of segregation, tired of the beatings and the murders. can you blame us for lashing out and wanting to protect ourselves and have something to believe in? But i guess you cant really see our side, not being black and all. This is your country after all isnt it. so you would never ever have to go through the same problems.



Being a black male in america does have a negative connotation. Its like your almost expected to fail. Hell, im on a FF web forum and the other day i was talkin to a white guy about ff( in person) and he said it surprised him that a guy liek me would play a game like that. Why? Cause im black. Now i know he didnt mean any harm by it. But, its just goes to show you that its not expected of us to be doing anything with ourselves. When you know how to accually do something some lvl of inteligence, its like your a one man monkey show, because its like the rest of the world didnt think you could do it.

As for Affirmative action, its still needed. If it wasnt for affirmative action, we would still get put on the back burner for jobs we are qualified to do. Im sure there are alot of jobs out there that if they didnt have to hire black people, they wouldnt. America is still racist, its just doesnt out right declare it anymore.

Sasquatch, i can tell by what you wrote that you dont seem to have much racial tolorance. i bet your the type that would never let your daughter come home with a black guy or let your kids associate with black people all together.

Im sorry if affirmative action makes you feel like minorities are taking your jobs, but hey, if its gonna level the playing field, then too bad for you. Until there is REAL equality in america, and not this supposed equality, then we still need Affirmative action. Also if you didnt know, AA works both ways. if a white college student wanted to go to Prodominately black college, he could apply and probably beat a more qualified black student. so i mean, i guess that could make you feel a little better. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You're a black guy in America. You and Holocaust survivors have absolutely nothing in common, it's a shame and disgraceful that you even try to compare yourself to them. Plus, you know nothing of what black people faced in the 60s during the civil rights struggle. What, somebody calls you "the N word" and all of the sudden you're "persecuted"?

BTW. When a black person goes to court, they get just as fair of a trial as everybody else. Being black has nothing to do with whether or not they are convicted--being guilty controls that, plus their counsel, and they get the same counsel as everybody else too. So don't even try the "the justice system hates black people", because black people that are convicted are the first ones to appeal on the grounds of their jury having too many white people, even if it's not even half.

Remember Rodney King? I'm sure you do--may not remember him, but I'm sure you know about him. He was so high on PCP that they stuck him with a tazer, what, three times? Four? And it had no effect? He led them on a half-hour chase through city streets with total disregard and disrespect for authority or the safety of those around him, and then fought with the police when they finally stopped him. I say he deserved to get his ass beat, I would have too, given the chance. Not because he was black, but because he deserved it. Now--do you remember Reginald Denny? Probably not. He was a guy who was beat nearly to death during the L.A. race riots. Wrong place, wrong time. Reginald Denny was a white truck driver, not disobeying any laws, when he drove past a bunch of black guys. They chased him down, drug him out of his cab, and beat him within an inch of his life. It was videotaped. Not a police video, either, that's mounted in a car, somebody actually held a camera through this whole thing to tape it. Do you know how many people were put in prison for that? How many people were held accountable for that?

I didn't say you were a racist for supporting the NAACP, and I didn't say that everybody was a racist. I said that the NAACP is racist.

And the Black Panthers, at that time, were more active and much more destructive than the KKK was. Are you saying that's alright, because they got things done?

---

I didnt compare black peopel to holocaust victums.I compared people who tell me to just shutup and deal with racism,police harasments and all that nice stuff to the poeple who told holocaust survivors that the holocaust had never happened.Yeah people actually did tell them that and it pissed them off.

Quote:

---

"O.J. Simpson isn't guilty, a white man murdered those two people, they're just trying to pin it on O.J. because he's a successful black man."

---

Yes, alot of people do believe that, but O.J. didn't get off because he was black, he got off because he was famous. Had he been a black truck driver, say, he would have been convicted.

Quote:

---

Yeah i remember rodney king and even if he did all those things while high on drugs, the police had no right to continue to beat him down like that. He was already subdued and all they had to do was cuff him and put him in the police cruser, but like the VIDEO EVIDENCE showed, they continued to beat him him down like a dog. Excessive violence and obviously a jury saw it that way as well. Too bad a black man needs concrete evidence like video to make a point.

---

Exactly. The only unusual thing about the Rodney King case was that there was a trial. :mad:

DarkLadyNyara -- O.J. got off because he was black AND famous. There were people on his jury that said "oh it didn't matter if he was innocent, it was just about time that a black man beat the system for once instead of the system beating the black man." People actually believed that since they thought too many black people had been wrongly convicted, it was perfectly fine for a double-murderer to go free.

lordblazer -- you're comparing what you think you go through to what Nazi Germany put Jews through in the 30's and early 40's. There is no comparison. Drop it. You can compare yourself to somebody that gets teased because they're fat, or ugly, or something like that, but modern black people and Holocaust survivors have absolutely nothing in common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

So your basically saying that if a black person gets called a nigger, we should just accept it because we are too young to have gone through the civil rights stuggle.

---

No, I'm not saying that. You're right, nobody should have to tolerate persecution just because they are (or are not) of a certain race, no matter which race that may be. But there's a HUGE difference in the "racism" that black people face nowdays and the REAL racism that they faced decades ago, and one would be either incredibly ignorant or incredibly arrogant not to realize that.

By the way. No, I have never been through a trial. But to say the justice system is racist is rediculous. Ever heard of a "jury of peers"? Most juries for black trials are made up at least half of black people. So, what, black people are racist against black people too? Or are all the lawyers racist and don't defend their black clients because they want them to go to jail? Or are the judges racist? Or the bailifs, or the prison guards?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

I dont really rememer this, but its pretty sad. It was probably some type of retaliation thing over the rodney king scandal, but that doesnt make it right. i feel sorry for that man.

---

Of course you don't remember it. And of course it was part of the retaliation for Rodney King--only a small part. Remember the riots, the violence, the incredible amounts of looting that happened, all claimed as "retaliation" for Rodney King? What is it, one of my people got what he deserved in getting beat up by some of your people, so now our people are going to destroy millions and millions of dollars worth of property, cost many millions more in delays, protection, etc., and beat up some of your people too? Is that fair? Is that even understandable? Oh, and there was no "Rodney King scandal". It was a beating, and there was a trial. No scandal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

Yeah right. the black panthers werent out lynching white folks now where they. They were violent, yes i agree, but not to the point of saying they were worst than the KKK. You can only oppress a people for so long. Black folks were tired of segregation, tired of the beatings and the murders. can you blame us for lashing out and wanting to protect ourselves and have something to believe in? But i guess you cant really see our side, not being black and all.

---

No, the Black Panthers didn't lynch people, they just shot them. In fact, a Black Panther struggle was one of the first times a SWAT team was put to use--but sorry, SWAT teams are racist too, right? They were just as extreme in ideals and probably more violent than the KKK was, AT THE TIME. And just because they were oppressed doesn't mean it was alright. The Black Panthers most likely set back the civil rights movement through their tactics. Yes, we can blame you for "lashing out" and taking aim at innocent people just because they're white.

"But I guess you can't really see our side, not being black and all." What a crock. Just because somebody may not be black doesn't mean that they don't know what black people really go through. (by the way...psssssst...just so you know...just because somebody's not black...that doesn't mean they're racist against black people either...it may surprise you, but the whole world really isn't out to get you...)

I have plenty of tolerance, and I don't care about race. No matter who my daughter dated, I would check them out anyway--white, black, Asian, Mexican, whatever, I'd still be wary of 'em. I wouldn't be any more cautious because he was black, I would only be more cautious if he acted like somebody I didn't approve of. I wouldn't have a problem with letting my kids have black friends, as I have black friends of my own. Hell, a couple black friends even conceded that I was half black just by what I like to eat.

That being said... How much "racism" is actually brought upon black people by themselves? You mentioned that a white guy was surprised to hear you would play Final Fantasy. Is that the fault of white people, or black people? It seems that too many black people have given the entire race a name of wannabe gangsters and pimps and drug dealers. A lot of people would be somewhat surprised to hear that a black person would be interested in Final Fantasy. Obviously stereotypes and generalizations aren't correct for the entire group, no matter which group it is, but black people tend to bring a lot of it upon themselves. For example, why is it that when a black guy succeeds in something, like business, he "turns white"? There aren't successful black people, there are just "oreos" that look black but are white on the inside, or people that have turned their backs on their black roots? Just pointing it out.

Quote:

---

There were people on his jury that said "oh it didn't matter if he was innocent, it was just about time that a black man beat the system for once instead of the system beating the black man."

---

Yes, I'm well aware of that, and I find it pretty sick. I have never claimed that blacks couldn't be racist.

Quote:

---

And of course it was part of the retaliation for Rodney King--only a small part. Remember the riots, the violence, the incredible amounts of looting that happened, all claimed as "retaliation" for Rodney King? What is it, one of my people got what he deserved in getting beat up by some of your people, so now our people are going to destroy millions and millions of dollars worth of property, cost many millions more in delays, protection, etc., and beat up some of your people too?

---

I resent the idea that the riots were "retaliation" for Rodney King. Most of the areas damaged by the riots were poor and minority neighborhoods. The riots were little more than people who were already idiots using the incident as an excuse to be idiots. I don't feel that the police were justified, but neither were the rioters.

Quote:

---

There aren't successful black people, there are just "oreos" that look black but are white on the inside, or people that have turned their backs on their black roots? Just pointing it out.

---

As much as I hate to admit it, that is often true.

Just a little note: the black panthers weren't a terrorist group out to get white people like the KKK was with black people, but to defend blacks. Were they going about it the wrong way? That's a matter of opinion. Martin Luther King certainly thought they were. Either way, if you even try to say the black panthers were worse, or even like the KKK, you're one mixed up individual.

I do agree with the sentiment about alot of black racism being brought about by blacks much like alot of homophobia is brought about by gays. The avid "priders" who run around in the street wearing leather bondage gear and waving pink flags singing "It's Raining Men" and walking around throwing who they have sex with and how they have sex with them in everyone's faces. I guarntee you if it wasn't for them, there wouldn't be nearly as much hostility toward homosexuals. But then, I still think the homophobes are to blame for being dumb enough to just assume every last gay person is like that.

Same goes for African Americans. Just like Sasquatch said, and it is indeed true a great deal of the time, that blacks stereotype themselves and if someone is sucessful, talks at a certain level of English proficiency, listens to a certain kind of music, or dresses a certain way, they're "a dark skined white person" or something along those lines, as if to say that black people aren't supposed to be sucessful and are supposed to all remain uneducated and living off drug money and pimpin'. Many black rappers further enforce these stereotypes upon themselves and African Americans period. But does that mean it's ok for someone to just assume that every last black person thinks this way? No, and just because people create stereotypes isn't an excuse for racist people to be dumb enough to follow and base their judgements upon them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

DarkLadyNyara -- O.J. got off because he was black AND famous. There were people on his jury that said "oh it didn't matter if he was innocent, it was just about time that a black man beat the system for once instead of the system beating the black man." People actually believed that since they thought too many black people had been wrongly convicted, it was perfectly fine for a double-murderer to go free.

---

i agree with you there. its was more fun just knowing that a black man beat the system at its own game. i know i never really cared weather he did it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

No, I'm not saying that. You're right, nobody should have to tolerate persecution just because they are (or are not) of a certain race, no matter which race that may be. But there's a HUGE difference in the "racism" that black people face nowdays and the REAL racism that they faced decades ago, and one would be either incredibly ignorant or incredibly arrogant not to realize that.

---

What the hell is "real" racsim and "fake" racism? Racism is racism. plain and simple. Just like when the killed Emmit Till for looking at a white girl wrong, they will do the same thing nowwa days. In fact its well documented how racism is still strong in america, especially in the southern states. Hell not to long ago there was a case where at Couple of good ole white boys tied a black guy up to the back of their pick up truck and dragged him for a couple miles. But i will agree with you on one point. The racism black folks faced in the early 40's, 50's, 60's, is not the way we experience it today. Its more subtle now. Now you got people that are "in the closet racist" because its quite possible to end up in jail now for being commiting hate crimes against blacks. So its not that racism is any more real or fake than it was in teh past. its just that the way its packaged is alittle different. Every time you turn on the news and you see something bad that involves black folks but you never even see or hear about crimes commited by white people; RACISM. Everytime you look and they ALWAYS show black people on welfare, show black people being homeless, like there are no white homeless and no white people on welfare ; RACISM. Everytime you see drug users and or people selling drugs you are only gonna hear about black people. All that is a form of racism. It helps to flame the steretypes about black people that you so obviously believe in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

By the way. No, I have never been through a trial. But to say the justice system is racist is rediculous. Ever heard of a "jury of peers"? Most juries for black trials are made up at least half of black people. So, what, black people are racist against black people too? Or are all the lawyers racist and don't defend their black clients because they want them to go to jail? Or are the judges racist? Or the bailifs, or the prison guards?

---

Well its obvious that you've never been on trail or gone to jail for anything because of your lack of knowledge on the judicial system and how it works from the inside, not what they teach you in books or on "law and order".

How can you make a general assumption that all juries made up for black people contain at least half? Yeah that would work in a big city, But if a crime takes place in a smaller city where most of the black people know each other and live in teh same area then if they had to draw a jury pool, that would disqualify most of the black folk because they live close to you or know you. Most prosecutors and judges will dismiss you from jury duty if you know the defendant or live near them. So that would ultimately make the jury pool have more white people on it than black people. i would say that most jurys are at least 1/3 black people. And lets not get on these pussy ass public defenders that dont give a damn weather you go to jail or not. They get paid weather you go to jail or not. So im not saying they are racist, they just dont care. Like i said before, the only way for a black man to get off is to have decent representation. and the only way to be able to have a good lawyer is to be rich. other than that, a black man aint got no chance.

And yes black people can be racist against ourselves, but thats one of our conditions that doesnt really concern anyone else. We put to much thought into how light or dark we are and we seem to value a lighter skin person over a darker skin person. Its something thats been instilled in us since slavery times. When it worked out for you to be light skinned. but im not gonna go into that, cause im sure you already dont understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Of course you don't remember it. And of course it was part of the retaliation for Rodney King--only a small part. Remember the riots, the violence, the incredible amounts of looting that happened, all claimed as "retaliation" for Rodney King? What is it, one of my people got what he deserved in getting beat up by some of your people, so now our people are going to destroy millions and millions of dollars worth of property, cost many millions more in delays, protection, etc., and beat up some of your people too? Is that fair? Is that even understandable? Oh, and there was no "Rodney King scandal". It was a beating, and there was a trial. No scandal.

---

I clearly said that it was wrong and that i feel sorry for the man. What was the point of even bringing this back up?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

"But I guess you can't really see our side, not being black and all." What a crock. Just because somebody may not be black doesn't mean that they don't know what black people really go through. (by the way...psssssst...just so you know...just because somebody's not black...that doesn't mean they're racist against black people either...it may surprise you, but the whole world really isn't out to get you...)

---

No, you dont know what its like to be black cause your not black. There is NO way to understand whats its like unless you are in that particular place. Just like i was watching this documentary called "Born Rich" on HBO the other day. And it had all these little rich white kids who have everything, but have so many problems. "oh i dont know what im gonna do with my life...seeing as how im rich and all...i dont really have to work." Now, im sure they really had a legitamate problem. but i couldnt understand it. Why because im neither white nor rich(obviously). AND i didnt say all white people are racist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I have plenty of tolerance, and I don't care about race. No matter who my daughter dated, I would check them out anyway--white, black, Asian, Mexican, whatever, I'd still be wary of 'em. I wouldn't be any more cautious because he was black, I would only be more cautious if he acted like somebody I didn't approve of. I wouldn't have a problem with letting my kids have black friends, as I have black friends of my own. Hell, a couple black friends even conceded that I was half black just by what I like to eat.

---

if you say so...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

That being said... How much "racism" is actually brought upon black people by themselves? You mentioned that a white guy was surprised to hear you would play Final Fantasy. Is that the fault of white people, or black people? It seems that too many black people have given the entire race a name of wannabe gangsters and pimps and drug dealers. A lot of people would be somewhat surprised to hear that a black person would be interested in Final Fantasy. Obviously stereotypes and generalizations aren't correct for the entire group, no matter which group it is, but black people tend to bring a lot of it upon themselves. For example, why is it that when a black guy succeeds in something, like business, he "turns white"? There aren't successful black people, there are just "oreos" that look black but are white on the inside, or people that have turned their backs on their black roots? Just pointing it out.

---

They so called "turn white" because that is the only way to succed in a white mans business. THE ONLY WAY. But your right, we do bring alot of our steretypes on ourselves. i will definately give you that. Specially with rap music being so popular with the general population now. But how does being a gangster and what not equate to not liking a FF game. that doesnt make since. So are you saying gangsters arent smart enough to play those games? Or you saying that gangsters are jsut to tough to want to play these games. Look, its like this, Just how white folks enjoy rap music and hip hop, we can enjoy some of the things that arent specific to the black culture too. I also agree that, yes, alot of have turned our backs on our roots. Black folks are quick to forget where they come from.

Quote:

---

What the hell is "real" racsim and "fake" racism? Racism is racism. plain and simple. Just like when the killed Emmit Till for looking at a white girl wrong, they will do the same thing nowwa days. In fact its well documented how racism is still strong in america, especially in the southern states. Hell not to long ago there was a case where at Couple of good ole white boys tied a black guy up to the back of their pick up truck and dragged him for a couple miles. But i will agree with you on one point. The racism black folks faced in the early 40's, 50's, 60's, is not the way we experience it today. Its more subtle now. Now you got people that are "in the closet racist" because its quite possible to end up in jail now for being commiting hate crimes against blacks. So its not that racism is any more real or fake than it was in teh past. its just that the way its packaged is alittle different. Every time you turn on the news and you see something bad that involves black folks but you never even see or hear about crimes commited by white people; RACISM. Everytime you look and they ALWAYS show black people on welfare, show black people being homeless, like there are no white homeless and no white people on welfare ; RACISM. Everytime you see drug users and or people selling drugs you are only gonna hear about black people. All that is a form of racism. It helps to flame the steretypes about black people that you so obviously believe in.

---

I agree with you.Racism is really subtle that people jsut don't pay attention to it.Like on the news when they do a crimnal description.Its most of hte time a black male with low cut or faded hair.Not a good descriptiong since 500 other black males in the city can fit it.Like it or not when they get the wrong guy and its a black male liekthe description said.The police will just hold them in jail until they get a phony confession out of them.

Another part of evidence on racism is in OKC. the NE part of town is the black side.now if your well aware of this.Like most black side of towns.You have to drive to the rother side of the city like 10 to 20 miles away just so you can get stuff like grocerie's and clothing.Stuff that you need.It isn't on the black side on town.I mean its really the best place to set up a business.It has the lowest crime rate in OKC and has held that title for really 10 years.So why isn't there a mall or atleast a grocery store?

It's good to see that we can all still exercise freedom of speech.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

Just like when the killed Emmit Till for looking at a white girl wrong, they will do the same thing nowwa days.

---

Umm, no, he said "bye baby" to a white female clerk. They said that was "getting fresh with a white woman". Plus, I seriously doubt 2 men who did that to a 13 year old boy would get off scott free today. Also, you can't have an all-white jury anymore, like they did in that case.

I mean there's still racist bastards like that, I see them every day. But doing stuff like they did to Emmit Teal and getting away with it just won't happen. Things have atleast gotten that much better. You can't just act like no progress whatsoever has been made since the Jim Crowe days.

I think there's a lot less racism than there used to be. Most kids my age don't really separate themselves by race, which in my parents day was something strange and in my grandparent's day was never heard of. But I think in the past there was a lot more "ethnic pride" too. My great grandmother had to elope to marry the man she loved -- because her family was Polish and his wasn't and for some reason way back around WWI era, you just didn't do that. Point being, we're getting better, and sooner or later it'll be martians who need AA because us Homo Sapiens are using the ole boyz network to keep ET from getting hired.

I suppose Affirative Action in some form is still needed, at least in the form of "all things being equal, give the nod to the non-white guy/gal". The problem is that companies are lazy, so rather than get a big enough pool of candidates to select a qualified AA candidate from, they set a quota, and then if they're under the quota, they pick a AA candidate who isn't quite as good. Economics or some junk. That isn't the fault of the AA program, it's the fault of the human beings making the hiring decisions. At any rate, who said the job belonged to the white guy anyway, or the slot in the college or anything else that AA supposedly is taking away from white males? I personally suspect that at least a third of the white candidates who think they didn't get the job because of AA were never actually in consideration in the first place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gnostic Yevon

I think there's a lot less racism than there used to be. Most kids my age don't really separate themselves by race, which in my parents day was something strange and in my grandparent's day was never heard of. But I think in the past there was a lot more "ethnic pride" too. My great grandmother had to elope to marry the man she loved -- because her family was Polish and his wasn't and for some reason way back around WWI era, you just didn't do that. Point being, we're getting better, and sooner or later it'll be martians who need AA because us Homo Sapiens are using the ole boyz network to keep ET from getting hired.

I suppose Affirative Action in some form is still needed, at least in the form of "all things being equal, give the nod to the non-white guy/gal". The problem is that companies are lazy, so rather than get a big enough pool of candidates to select a qualified AA candidate from, they set a quota, and then if they're under the quota, they pick a AA candidate who isn't quite as good. Economics or some junk. That isn't the fault of the AA program, it's the fault of the human beings making the hiring decisions. At any rate, who said the job belonged to the white guy anyway, or the slot in the college or anything else that AA supposedly is taking away from white males? I personally suspect that at least a third of the white candidates who think they didn't get the job because of AA were never actually in consideration in the first place.

---

I agree with you.My generation really isn't as racist as the previous ones in america.But the generation I'm in isn't calling the shots.Its teh previous ones that get to call the shots in society.Thus my life as a black male is gonna be wayyyy tougher than a life of a white male.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Because it's not just the NAACP's money, it's taxpayer's money. If the NAACP never got a cent from the government and ran completely off charity, it wouldn't be as much of an issue. Plus, they are an influential part of society, and you know as well as I do that a KKK scholarship would NEVER be given out in a public, government, tax-funded school system, because it's too discriminatory. Discriminate against white people, that's fine, but against blacks, that's evil and racist. Here's something for you--it's the KKK's money, why can't they use it to buy firearms, then register them and give them to white people in highly black communities? Would that not be a little racist? Necessary, maybe, but still...

---

Well if the KKK qualified for state/government funds, then i'd have no problem with it. But thank God, they dont. Once something is GIVEN the GIVER is no longer the OWNER and has RELINQUISHED POSSESION, and it is now owned by the one it was GIVEN to. Now whatever they want to do with THEIR money, short of destabilizing the U.S. government, drug-dealing, and funding Al-Qaeda is fine with me. And on the second part, they cant do that??? I had no idea that they couldnt buy firearms legally register them etc etc... I'd say that was a violation of their second amendment rights. They maybe be assholes, but they are still American. Dont EVER ASSume u have put me in the clutch, u have no idea what im going to say next, or in response.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Who's more likely to get into college based on race/sex? Not white males.

Who's more likely to not only get into college, but get much more money and opportunities for college, based on race/sex? Not white males.

Who's more likely to get a job in most places, based on race/sex? Not white males.

And who's the most likely to sue based on allegations of racism or sexism? Not white males.

---

Yet u must realize that with all that in mind... who controls 95% of the wealth... white males. So those issue must be irrelevant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I say he deserved to get his ass beat, I would have too, given the chance. Not because he was black, but because he deserved it.

---

Well u may not know this but the police work off of the idea "nessecary force" which means if he needs his ass beat, then beat him and thats fine. This man was on the ground hands over his head as they repeatedly clubbed him with night sticks, ever been hit with a night stick? My friend tapped me with one it left a welt, they were CLUBBING Rodney King. I dont look at him as a hero, just a person unnessacarily beaten by police.

[QUOTEQUOTE=Sasquatch]DarkLadyNyara -- O.J. got off because he was black AND famous. There were people on his jury that said "oh it didn't matter if he was innocent, it was just about time that a black man beat the system for once instead of the system beating the black man." People actually believed that since they thought too many black people had been wrongly convicted, it was perfectly fine for a double-murderer to go free.[/QUOTE]

And lets not forget the GROSS nelegence by the investigation team, including contaminating the crime scene, im suprised the judge didnt dismiss the case. Also "If the glove doesnt fit, u must aquit.". Now i think OJ did it, but if the jurors actually said that i'd support a retrial.

(*Change Subject*)

Well like i said about free speech in the beggining if we do away with all talk of discrimination/harm to people because of race, religion, sexuality, and sexual orientation, i beileve the world will become a better place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

Well u may not know this but the police work off of the idea "nessecary force" which means if he needs his ass beat, then beat him and thats fine. This man was on the ground hands over his head as they repeatedly clubbed him with night sticks, ever been hit with a night stick? My friend tapped me with one it left a welt, they were CLUBBING Rodney King. I dont look at him as a hero, just a person unnessacarily beaten by police.

---

Not only that, but to add injury to insult, All the cops involved never got a day worth of jail time. The all got off, even with them clubbing the hell outta him on tape.

Now with the case about the white guy who got beat by a mob of black guys, all of them went to jail.

Hows that for justice?

Quote:

---

And lets not forget the GROSS nelegence by the investigation team, including contaminating the crime scene, im suprised the judge didnt dismiss the case. Also "If the glove doesnt fit, u must aquit.". Now i think OJ did it, but if the jurors actually said that i'd support a retrial.

---

Actualy, they never did prove that there was contamination. As for the glove... 1- he was wearing latex gloves under them. 2- Wet leather shrinks as it dries. 3- O.J. had his fingers splayed so that they couldn't be pulled on.(imagine trying to get clothing on to a struggling 2-year old). And 4- They did fit, just not well.

All the black guys who beat Reginald Denny went to jail? Really? Wow, when did this happen?

"I resent the idea that the riots were "retaliation" for Rodney King."

They were retaliation for Rodney King. Black people weren't happy with the ruling that was handed down, so they figured they'd "punish" the city in their own way. Poor black neighborhoods took a lot of damage because it was black people that were looting and smashing things, and they were either too lazy or too stupid to leave the local area before they did it.

"Either way, if you even try to say the black panthers were worse, or even like the KKK, you're one mixed up individual."

How many times do I have to say this. AT THE TIME, the Black Panthers were worse than the KKK. There was a certain, short, period of time when there were more incidents traced back to the Black Panthers than there were to the KKK. (And no, it's not because everybody was a racist and blamed everything on the black people.) Not throughout history, not overall, but within a few years.

"i agree with you there. its was more fun just knowing that a black man beat the system at its own game. i know i never really cared weather he did it or not."

You never cared that somebody who slaughtered two people was set free? Is that because he was black, or do you only care that a criminal is punished if he's white? He didn't "beat the system at its own game". First of all, the "system" isn't playing a "wrongly-convict-the-black-man" game, no matter how many people think it is. Second, still, he deserved to be punished for it.

"What the hell is "real" racsim and "fake" racism?"

Nobody mentioned "fake racism". But trying to compare what you go through to what black people went through in the 60s and such is like comparing a modern military finance officer to an enlisted infantryman in Vietnam. It just don't match up. Even if people still do face racism now, it is NOTHING compared to what they faced almost half a century ago.

"Hell not to long ago there was a case where at Couple of good ole white boys tied a black guy up to the back of their pick up truck and dragged him for a couple miles."

I know about that. He died. And both of the white guys got life sentences. There was an ad for Gore, I think, that had a little black girl talking about how "when George W. Bush refused to sign this hate crime bill into law, it was like killing my daddy all over again." For one thing, "hate crimes" are regulations against thoughts, not actions, and for another, they were already punished, so it's not like they would have gotten off clean unless they were tried for a hate crime.

"Every time you turn on the news and you see something bad that involves black folks but you never even see or hear about crimes commited by white people; RACISM. Everytime you look and they ALWAYS show black people on welfare, show black people being homeless, like there are no white homeless and no white people on welfare ; RACISM. Everytime you see drug users and or people selling drugs you are only gonna hear about black people. All that is a form of racism. It helps to flame the steretypes about black people that you so obviously believe in."

You know why that is, genius? You know why it is that they show crimes being committed by black people, or people on welfare that are black, or druggies that are black? BECAUSE THEY ARE. It's not "racism", it's "news". Black people make up the majority of the people on welfare--how is that possible, when only 12% of the population is black? Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's because the whole world is racist against black people, right? Why do black people make up a good percentage of the people in jail? Sorry, it's not because "the system has it in for black people", it's because THEY'RE GUILTY. Now, why is it that there are so many black criminals when, again, they only make up 12% of the population? Same thing with drug users. It's not because all the media is racist, it's because it's accurate. Get over it.

"And lets not get on these pussy ass public defenders that dont give a damn weather you go to jail or not. They get paid weather you go to jail or not."

Yes, they get paid. But they're employed by the government, so they don't get paid much. They usually trying to get a good record, and a good name for themself, so that they can get a job at a firm somewhere. So yes, they'll get paid anyway, but most public defenders don't make a career out of it. And if the public defenders don't give adequate counsel, then the convicted can have the case appealed on that grounds, and probably get it overturned. Oh, but sorry, I forgot, the judge won't overturn a case upon inadequate counsel because it's a black guy and judges are racist, right?

"Like on the news when they do a crimnal description.Its most of hte time a black male with low cut or faded hair."

That's because, a lot of the time, it's a black male with low cut or faded hair that commits the crime.

I'd like to say more, but I got to get a shower and take care of some things. More later...bt I'll wait until y'all come back with things.

First off it appears that being a single woman with kids and no husband is the biggest predictor of poverty. Your odds of being poor double no matter what race you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cenusus

http://www.census.gov/hhes/poverty/histpov/hstpov4.html

WHITE NOT HISPANIC -- Continued (All Families)
With Children Under 18 Years
2001...... 24,861 2,014 8.1(%)

BLACK -- Continued (All Families)
With Children Under 18 Years
2001...... 5,739 1,524 26.6(%)

HISPANIC (of any race) -- Continued (All Families)
With Children Under 18 Years
2001...... 5,937 1,405 23.7(%)

WHITE NOT HISPANIC -- Continued (Female Householder, no husband present)
With Children Under 18 Years
2001...... 4,414 1,135 25.7(%)

BLACK -- Continued (Female Householder, no husband present)
With Children Under 18 Years
2001...... 2,994 1,220 40.8(%)

HISPANIC (of any race) -- Continued (Female Householder, no husband present)
With Children Under 18 Years
2001..... 1,493 645 43.2(%)

---

Secondly, most people in prisons are white, not black. At least according to the US DOJ. So as to which crimes are more likely to make the evening news, I don't know which ones are more violent. I suspect that it's the violentness of the actual crime the person committed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

All the black guys who beat Reginald Denny went to jail? Really? Wow, when did this happen?

---

Yeah, look it up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You never cared that somebody who slaughtered two people was set free? Is that because he was black, or do you only care that a criminal is punished if he's white? He didn't "beat the system at its own game". First of all, the "system" isn't playing a "wrongly-convict-the-black-man" game, no matter how many people think it is. Second, still, he deserved to be punished for it.

---

No, i dont care. AND it was more like, the feelin that white people got away with doing stuff to black people for so long. That it was about time blacks got away with something. I could care less if he chopped up those two people. And honestly, if the situation was reverserd and a white guy chopped up two people, you wouldnt really give a damn neither.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Nobody mentioned "fake racism". But trying to compare what you go through to what black people went through in the 60s and such is like comparing a modern military finance officer to an enlisted infantryman in Vietnam. It just don't match up. Even if people still do face racism now, it is NOTHING compared to what they faced almost half a century ago.

---

I wasnt trying to compare. All im saying is, racism is still racism. And its still going strong today. AND waht do you know? Your White. You have no grounds to be telling anybody about racism. You dont know how its feels to be descrimanted on because of your race. Even a little bit. I wont even respond to you no more on this subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You know why that is, genius? You know why it is that they show crimes being committed by black people, or people on welfare that are black, or druggies that are black? BECAUSE THEY ARE. It's not "racism", it's "news". Black people make up the majority of the people on welfare--how is that possible, when only 12% of the population is black? Oh, sorry, I forgot, it's because the whole world is racist against black people, right? Why do black people make up a good percentage of the people in jail? Sorry, it's not because "the system has it in for black people", it's because THEY'RE GUILTY. Now, why is it that there are so many black criminals when, again, they only make up 12% of the population? Same thing with drug users. It's not because all the media is racist, it's because it's accurate. Get over it.

---

Ok, so are you really saying that black people commit more crimes than white people. Now i will agree there are more black people than white people in jail, but that doesnt mean black people commit more crimes. That means more black people get convicted. There is no way to even show who does more crime. You also believe that more black people are on drugs that white people. There is also no way to show that. Welfare...Ive looked up and down for statics on welfare, and i couldnt find one that said there are more blacks on welfare over white people. So basically you are spitting out your personal beliefs at me. You dont know if half of these things you state is true or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Yes, they get paid. But they're employed by the government, so they don't get paid much. They usually trying to get a good record, and a good name for themself, so that they can get a job at a firm somewhere. So yes, they'll get paid anyway, but most public defenders don't make a career out of it. And if the public defenders don't give adequate counsel, then the convicted can have the case appealed on that grounds, and probably get it overturned. Oh, but sorry, I forgot, the judge won't overturn a case upon inadequate counsel because it's a black guy and judges are racist, right?

---

how many cases do you really think gets overturned this way? not many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

That's because, a lot of the time, it's a black male with low cut or faded hair that commits the crime.

---

The point he was trying to make is that, thats to general a description. Thats like just like saying ; crimnal descripton, black male.

Saying criminal desciption; black male with low cut hair, basically gives them the right to pull over anyone black. Hell i could fit the desciption to a crime that was commited in california right now under that description, and i live in DC.

I am certian it was this thread, but in many small towns, racism, amazingly enough, is not all that prominent. We got a black fella in our school just a bit ago.. and well he was brought to almost instant popularity cause he happened to be good at a particular sport. Another black fella several years ago was also fairly popular du to the fact that that he was funny.

Anyways, I know very well my school would discriminate against someon.. but it would be for thier interests/tastes and actions and not race.

It is obvious however that some areas of the US have some really extreme racism.. Disgusting really.. My teacher when he was stationed in the south how many years ago had a black buddy. This black buddy was not allowed to be served in several dinners, due to the fact that the owners would fire the waitresses for feeding a black person... Really disgusting.

Quote:

---

You never cared that somebody who slaughtered two people was set free? Is that because he was black, or do you only care that a criminal is punished if he's white? He didn't "beat the system at its own game". First of all, the "system" isn't playing a "wrongly-convict-the-black-man" game, no matter how many people think it is. Second, still, he deserved to be punished for it.

---

Exactly. How someone can say "Oh, well, a mother of two was nearly decapitated, and an innocent man was stabbed to death for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that's okay, because blacks are discriminated against" and still look at themselves in the mirror, is beyond me. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara

Exactly. How someone can say "Oh, well, a mother of two was nearly decapitated, and an innocent man was stabbed to death for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, but that's okay, because blacks are discriminated against" and still look at themselves in the mirror, is beyond me. :mad: :mad: :mad:

---

well first because i dont really care. I mean, people die and get murdered everyday. It doesnt affect me to hear about it. Then on top of that, i would have to think Oj did it. Now, i he may have had a hand in it. But i dont believe he could have done it by himself. i mean, for him to stab to death two people at the same time. Two much younger people at that. Im not sure how old His wife was, but i know Ron Goldman was in his 20's and was a regular at the gym. So you mean to tell this phyiscally fit indivudual allowed Oj to stab him and the woman. I don think so. There was more too it. AND not only that, if he was so guilty,why was the police planting evidence to try and make him guilty. Obviously, a jury saw it my way. Why are white people still so hung up over this. This must be like "the fish that got away".

now i wasnt saying that it isnt bad that two people died. all im saying is that, normal, a black man in that situation would have been put to death. Even with all the evidence that proved him to be innocent a black man wouldnt have normally gotten off. I mean, you see how it is that even with the evidence that set him free, you all still dont want to believe that he's innocent. But had it been a white man, accussed of murdering a black man, you wouldnt have been so quick to condem him. Like ive always said, its not fair. and i was just glad to see a black man beat the system. i could care less weather or not he did it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

Why are white people still so hung up over this. This must be like "the fish that got away".

---

Why do you feel the need to generalize people based upon their race? Not all white people think he was guilty, not all black people think he was innocent. Given that the only people that know for sure are the ones involved, we'll never know. But good Lord, stop stereotyping people based on the color of their skin. White, black, freaking purple, it doesnt matter. We are all individuals. We all have rough times in our lives. We all experience discrimination to some degree over the course of our lives. No, this is not a continuation of the previous arguments stated, I wont get into that nonsense again. But get over the skin color. Am I the only one who doesnt draw a line between OJ's race and the probablity of him being guilty?

How would you feel if I said "Why are black people always so convinced every black is innocent?". Extend some common courtesy and common sense, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheAbominatrix

Why do you feel the need to generalize people based upon their race? Not all white people think he was guilty, not all black people think he was innocent. Given that the only people that know for sure are the ones involved, we'll never know. But good Lord, stop stereotyping people based on the color of their skin. White, black, freaking purple, it doesnt matter. We are all individuals. We all have rough times in our lives. We all experience discrimination to some degree over the course of our lives. No, this is not a continuation of the previous arguments stated, I wont get into that nonsense again. But get over the skin color. Am I the only one who doesnt draw a line between OJ's race and the probablity of him being guilty?

How would you feel if I said "Why are black people always so convinced every black is innocent?". Extend some common courtesy and common sense, please.

---

you are right, but i was only responding to someone who was also making generalizations. And once you start a conversation making generalizations and stereotypes, they kinda get carried away.

now i understand that not every white feels OJ did it, and not everyone black feels he was innocent, that was never my point. My whole point was, i dont care if he did it or not.

And with some of theses things we've been talking about, there is no grey area to be in between, there is only black and white.


But i hear you. i will try to calm the stereotyping and generalizing down.

I know the point you were trying to make, but I do get sick of hearing the "Oh well, white people..." just as much as I get sick of "Oh well, black people..." but the first one is usually far more PC and accepted than the other.

Thank you :skull3: I apologize if I got snappy. <3

Yes, most people in prison are white. But by percentage, there are more black prisoners than there are white. How else could I put it... The percentage of the black population that is in jail is higher than the percentage of the white population that is in jail. Just like people on welfare, and people that use drugs. There may not be more numbers, but blacks only make up 12% of the population of America, so of course the numbers won't be equal. But if there are, let's just say, 10 white people on welfare, and 5 black people, when there are only 1000 white people and 100 black people in the country, that's what I'm talking about.

Let's get real, people. Nowadays, if you didn't commit the crime, there is an EXTREMELY thin chance you will be convicted of it. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that all your lawyers, judges, and jury members are racists and just want to see a black guy to go jail.

Our of all the guys who almost beat Reginald Denny to death, I believe ONE was actually punished for it. He's the one that was posing for the camera and smashing ol' Reggie's head with a cinder block. So, no, the people that beat up Reginald Denny did not go to jail, save one.

The statement that "if it was a white person that was proven to slaughter two people in cold blood and got off perfectly clean, you wouldn't give a damn either" is completely absurd. I don't care what color a guy is, if he does what OJ did, he deserves to have his brains scrambled and his eyeballs popped. And if a white man was in OJ's shoes, he WOULD have been found guilty, simply because he couldn't play the race card, and people wouldn't feel "we should feel sorry for black people, so we'll try to make it up to them by letting this double-murderer go free". Oh, and by the way, OJ was a retired football player, which meant he was pretty damn athletic. And you don't have to be extremely strong to kill somebody with a knife. Or two people.

Just because somebody may be white doesn't mean they don't know what racism feels like. You know, not only does the whole world NOT hate black people, but there are sections where white people are looked down upon just as much as there are sections where black people are looked down upon. Plus, you always have things like racial quotas (Affirmative Action), which are racist in favor of minorities.

OJ wasn't "the fish that got away". He was "the guilty man that was set free". Black people should be just as outraged as white people are, race shouldn't matter when you're talking about a double murderer.

EDIT: By the way, OJ didn't stab "two people at the same time". He slit Nicole Brown's throat, chased down and killed Goldman, then came back and made hamburger out of the lady. Not "impossible" in the least bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Yes, most people in prison are white. But by percentage, there are more black prisoners than there are white. How else could I put it... The percentage of the black population that is in jail is higher than the percentage of the white population that is in jail. Just like people on welfare, and people that use drugs. There may not be more numbers, but blacks only make up 12% of the population of America, so of course the numbers won't be equal. But if there are, let's just say, 10 white people on welfare, and 5 black people, when there are only 1000 white people and 100 black people in the country, that's what I'm talking about.

---

But thats not what you said at first. And no, most people in jail are black. ive already said that. Why is it that you refuse to believe that in alot of cases, black people get a raw deal when it comes to these things. And on top of that, there is still no real way to even know how many crimes are accually commited and who's commiting them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Let's get real, people. Nowadays, if you didn't commit the crime, there is an EXTREMELY thin chance you will be convicted of it. Unless, of course, you subscribe to the idea that all your lawyers, judges, and jury members are racists and just want to see a black guy to go jail.

---

yeah...ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Our of all the guys who almost beat Reginald Denny to death, I believe ONE was actually punished for it. He's the one that was posing for the camera and smashing ol' Reggie's head with a cinder block. So, no, the people that beat up Reginald Denny did not go to jail, save one.

---

yeah, ok, but out of all the cops that beat rodney king down, NONE OF THEM went to jail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

The statement that "if it was a white person that was proven to slaughter two people in cold blood and got off perfectly clean, you wouldn't give a damn either" is completely absurd. I don't care what color a guy is, if he does what OJ did, he deserves to have his brains scrambled and his eyeballs popped. And if a white man was in OJ's shoes, he WOULD have been found guilty, simply because he couldn't play the race card, and people wouldn't feel "we should feel sorry for black people, so we'll try to make it up to them by letting this double-murderer go free". Oh, and by the way, OJ was a retired football player, which meant he was pretty damn athletic. And you don't have to be extremely strong to kill somebody with a knife. Or two people.

---

he retired from the nFL in 1979. he hadn't played football in 15years. He was almost 50 when he was accussed of these crimes. thats more than enough time not be physical as fit as you where. not only that, he had arthritis was a old then. Do you honestly believe a 50 year old man with arthritis could chase down a young man in his 20's. Who was also an anthlete and physically fit. lets be real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Just because somebody may be white doesn't mean they don't know what racism feels like. You know, not only does the whole world NOT hate black people, but there are sections where white people are looked down upon just as much as there are sections where black people are looked down upon. Plus, you always have things like racial quotas (Affirmative Action), which are racist in favor of minorities.

---

ok but i didnt say that The whole world hated black folks and i never said there arent places where white folks are looked down upon. im Talking about America. THE USA. Where have you gon in america where white folks arent accepted? Where have you lived in america where White folks are really descrimanated on for being white? that dont even sound right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

OJ wasn't "the fish that got away". He was "the guilty man that was set free". Black people should be just as outraged as white people are, race shouldn't matter when you're talking about a double murderer.

---

*laughs* yeah...whatever you say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

EDIT: By the way, OJ didn't stab "two people at the same time". He slit Nicole Brown's throat, chased down and killed Goldman, then came back and made hamburger out of the lady. Not "impossible" in the least bit.

---

*see statement on how old OJ was above. *

We dont know what happened and how it went down. so we cant even assume to in what order they were killed.

I just have to say this in response to what she's said: I officially am in love with TheAbominatrix now. [img]http://home.eyesonff.com/images/smilies/heart.gif[/img]

On OJ, I don't know if he did it or not personally. I wasn't there, and I was far too young to really pay attention when that trial was going on. But yeah, I hated the whole "cuz he's black..." sentiment over that whole thing. Besides, if you want to talk about the criminal justice system, there's very large amount of African Americans working in it now. I seriously doubt they're out to get as many black people as they can thrown in jail.

Of course, with the way people talk about race SO FREAKING MUCH in criminal stats, I could see how it would appear that way...it bothers me.

But I seriously doubt OJ's verdict, reguadless of what it was, would of been related to his skin shade.

I apologize, I worded it wrong. I didn't mean that there are, numerically, more black people in prison than there are white people. But I did explain myself already.

Why do you refuse to believe that the world isn't out to get black people? Like I said, you can subscibe to the idea that everybody in the justice system (and jury members) is a racist and wants to just put a bunch of black people in prison, but when you pull your head out from under the rock, you may see the truth.

Out of the cops that beat up Rodney King, none of them were convicted and sentenced to a jail term, no. But it went on their records. Out of all the guys that stomped Reginald Denny, ONE went to trial. And none of the cops were "punished" because Rodney King deserved it! Rodney King had a reason to be beat, and not just the color of his skin like Reginald Denny.

OJ didn't have to chase Ron much. He was trying to defend Nicole, so he came to OJ not too far from where she was. So is it really so hard to believe that an athletic 45-year-old ex-NFL star could stab an athletic 20-year-old? Or, what, he would only be able to do it if he was white? (By the way, OJ kept in shape, like most pro athletes do when they retire.) And how do I know how they were killed? Because I paid attention to the trial, and that's what the trial showed. He subdued her, confronted/killed him, and then came back and finished her off. The evidence was plain and simple, to anybody that didn't care what color he was.

Ah--so you don't think the whole world hates black people, only the whole country, one of the most tolerant countries on the planet? And yes, there are places where white people are discriminated against. I've been through some of the bad parts of Chicago and Atlanta, trust me, there are plenty of people who hate white people out there. (That probably doesn't sound right to you because you didn't use decent spelling or grammar. If you used a dictionary, it might look better.)

I'm starting to understand it more clearly. You don't give a damn if a black person commits a crime, because everybody in America is racist against black people anyway, and they'd find some black guy to take the fall. But if a white guy commits a crime--especially, Heaven forbid, against a black person--then off with his balls. It reflects a lot of shame upon yourself--and anybody who agrees with you, whatever color they may be--to say that you don't care that somebody who slaughtered two innocent people is out on the streets still because he's black. Your mother must be so proud of you...unless she was the one who taught you to be racist.

EDIT: Why did OJ lose his civil case, if he was innocent?

: Why did OJ lose his civil case, if he was innocent?


because it was a civil case.Anyway SAS....ROdney King was cuffed and on the ground and not moving when they started to beat him.No one deserves that.Thent eh cops had the nerve to pass it off that Rodney King was raped by some homosexuals and that explains his injuries.Then you have the media always reporting crimes that black males do.There is a lot of mess and to say im suppose to feel symphony for a white male like yourself is idiotic.Plain and simple i have it harsher than you do.

Quote:

---

why was the police planting evidence to try and make him guilty.

---

Yeaaah... they didn't give any evidence of planting, either. :rolleyes2

Quote:

---

Do you honestly believe a 50 year old man with arthritis could chase down a young man in his 20's. Who was also an anthlete and physically fit. lets be real.

---

Nicole had both of the arteries in her throat severed, from behind, and Goldman was pinned in a corner, facing an enraged, knife-weilding ex-football player. Neither of them had a chance. BTW, Goldmans aorta was punctured. He was down in no time.

Quote:

---

because it was a civil case.

---

And that explains the verdict...how?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

because it was a civil case.Anyway SAS....ROdney King was cuffed and on the ground and not moving when they started to beat him.No one deserves that.Thent eh cops had the nerve to pass it off that Rodney King was raped by some homosexuals and that explains his injuries.Then you have the media always reporting crimes that black males do.There is a lot of mess and to say im suppose to feel symphony for a white male like yourself is idiotic.Plain and simple i have it harsher than you do.

---

Um...what? You're supposed to feel symphony for me? Sorry, I'm not big on symphonies. Or operas, either.

Being a civil case--explain how that makes a difference, would you? Since you must know so much more about our court systems than I do, even though I had considered and studied up on going into a career in law.

When the cops started to beat Rodney King, he was not on the ground in handcuffs. When they finished, he was. You still fail to mention the 100+ mph chase through residential areas, or the dozens of laws that he had broken, or that he was so hopped up on PCP that three shots from a tazer had no affect on him (PCP makes a man nearly invincible, or at least think/act like it), or the fact that he was already a FELON and violating his parole in the first place. Is that enough to warrant a beating, maybe not. But it is enough to excuse the officers (to an extent) for the way they acted. Quite frankly, if I had to chase this guy down, I'd probably beat the hell out of him too, no matter who it was. And I sure as hell wouldn't say "oh sorry man, I didn't realize you're white, just don't do it again and I'll give you a warning". If the Pope was driving that car, he'd have gotten a nightstick to his head.

You can go ahead and keep thinking that the whole of America is all against the black man if you want to.

And DarkLadyNyara--thanks for backing up the facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Um...what? You're supposed to feel symphony for me? Sorry, I'm not big on symphonies. Or operas, either.

Being a civil case--explain how that makes a difference, would you? Since you must know so much more about our court systems than I do, even though I had considered and studied up on going into a career in law.

When the cops started to beat Rodney King, he was not on the ground in handcuffs. When they finished, he was. You still fail to mention the 100+ mph chase through residential areas, or the dozens of laws that he had broken, or that he was so hopped up on PCP that three shots from a tazer had no affect on him (PCP makes a man nearly invincible, or at least think/act like it), or the fact that he was already a FELON and violating his parole in the first place. Is that enough to warrant a beating, maybe not. But it is enough to excuse the officers (to an extent) for the way they acted. Quite frankly, if I had to chase this guy down, I'd probably beat the hell out of him too, no matter who it was. And I sure as hell wouldn't say "oh sorry man, I didn't realize you're white, just don't do it again and I'll give you a warning". If the Pope was driving that car, he'd have gotten a nightstick to his head.

You can go ahead and keep thinking that the whole of America is all against the black man if you want to.

And DarkLadyNyara--thanks for backing up the facts.

---

it being a civil case meant that hima nd his lawyers half assed it.If it was a criminal case they would've done more to try to win which they did.Thus it went to civil case in which since he is rich.Really doesn't matter.If he loses oh well if he winss yippie. thats what I meant now just shut itand change the subject and no i don't want oyu to feel symphony for me you neo-conservative.

Another thing is Rodney King was'NT FIGHTING BACK!!! thats called police brutallity.I don't think the whole america is against a black males but hey think whatever the hell you want to mainly because your slanting oyur facts a bit and youand that other guy "sound"like you have all the facts straighten up but really you don't.A 100 MPH chase through a neiborhood does not constitute a beating once you give up and start complying to the police demands.Rodney ing didn't assualt them and the fact the cops did have the nerve to try to cover it up was pathetic.

Worse has happened.Like a hispanic family was aving a little gathering. A neibor started to see a bunch of cops pull up and he got a video tape.Filmed what the cops did to that whole family.They got them out into the front law and just started to beat them one by one. There is corrupting in the USA and you don't want to see it because you don't have to deal with corruption.Your a white male thus you goto jail when you have actually done something 99.9% of the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Why do you refuse to believe that the world isn't out to get black people? Like I said, you can subscibe to the idea that everybody in the justice system (and jury members) is a racist and wants to just put a bunch of black people in prison, but when you pull your head out from under the rock, you may see the truth.

---

I never said the world was out to get black people. all i said was that this country is still a very racist place to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Out of the cops that beat up Rodney King, none of them were convicted and sentenced to a jail term, no. But it went on their records. Out of all the guys that stomped Reginald Denny, ONE went to trial. And none of the cops were "punished" because Rodney King deserved it! Rodney King had a reason to be beat, and not just the color of his skin like Reginald Denny.

---

no man deserves to get beat. I even said that the black people that beat up reginald where wrong. Rodney may have been in the wrong. But he didnt deserve to get beat, those officers broke the law. Yet, they were held above the law for some reason. why was that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

OJ didn't have to chase Ron much. He was trying to defend Nicole, so he came to OJ not too far from where she was. So is it really so hard to believe that an athletic 45-year-old ex-NFL star could stab an athletic 20-year-old? Or, what, he would only be able to do it if he was white? (By the way, OJ kept in shape, like most pro athletes do when they retire.) And how do I know how they were killed? Because I paid attention to the trial, and that's what the trial showed. He subdued her, confronted/killed him, and then came back and finished her off. The evidence was plain and simple, to anybody that didn't care what color he was.

---

Dont give me that. According to your profile, you and i are about the same age, are you trying to tell me that, when you were 9 years old, you were following this case?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Ah--so you don't think the whole world hates black people, only the whole country, one of the most tolerant countries on the planet? And yes, there are places where white people are discriminated against. I've been through some of the bad parts of Chicago and Atlanta, trust me, there are plenty of people who hate white people out there. (That probably doesn't sound right to you because you didn't use decent spelling or grammar. If you used a dictionary, it might look better.)

---

See, this one just shows how childish you really are. Never once have i insulted your intelligence during the course of this whole debate. So what if my spelling is bad at 3am if you understood it enough to reply, then what was the point of commenting.

anyway, I didnt say there arent black people that dont like white people. But, this is your country. There is hardly anywhere that you cant go that isnt acceptant of your race. Also tollerant my ass. this country wasnt so tolerant when it enslaved an entire race for 400 years, Stole a whole country from the natives, raped and and killed its women and children. Your problem is not being able to see that america isnt all its cracked up to be. This only the land of the free when your color is right, and you bank account is right. Not to say that this isnt the land of opportunity, but its far from perfect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'm starting to understand it more clearly. You don't give a damn if a black person commits a crime, because everybody in America is racist against black people anyway, and they'd find some black guy to take the fall. But if a white guy commits a crime--especially, Heaven forbid, against a black person--then off with his balls. It reflects a lot of shame upon yourself--and anybody who agrees with you, whatever color they may be--to say that you don't care that somebody who slaughtered two innocent people is out on the streets still because he's black. Your mother must be so proud of you...unless she was the one who taught you to be racist.

---

This is the second time you've insulted me. Why must you result to childish insults? Be a man, and debate like a real man would do.

How does believing that i live in a country where for the most part, my people are not accepted like we should be. Or that our school systems dont get the same type of money from the government that the white school systems get. or that when we go to court the cards are usually stacked agaisnt us. how does that make me a racist. Hell ive experienced all of these i talk about. Can you honestly say you know what it's like to feel like you gotta fight extra hard for the same acceptance that other folks are granted sicne birth all because of your skin color. I live and work in a place where I gotta get past all the preconsieved notions about me because of the skin im in. Black people for the most part arent even awarded the same opportunities that other people are and its a shame. So when i openly talk about how bad it is for us, it makes me a racist? I dont think so. You cant just erase 500years of oppression. not from the hearts and minds of black people, and not from the hearts and minds of white people. Its still there and its gonna take more than just 100 or so years to get on fair grounds.

As for the OJ thing, sorry if someone getting killed doesnt affect me. I grew up in an enviorment with that type of violence. It didnt affect me, it doesnt affect me, i dont care. plain and simple.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

EDIT: Why did OJ lose his civil case, if he was innocent?

---

Cause the rules for winning a cilvil case and a criminal case are differnt.

let me make an assuption, you think Kobe Bryant raped that girl dont you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

EDIT: Why did OJ lose his civil case, if he was innocent?

---

In a federal case, u must be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. In a civil case however it just has to be 51% probable that ur at fault. Which is less than they need to arrest and charge u in a federal case i bet. Thus its alot easier for the plantiff to win, than a prosecutor.

(*Hang with me in these next 2 sections they have a point.*)

The DNA was left negelgently in the sun for 3 days by an investigator. The photo of the investigator with blood all over his show tracking it everywhere throughout the crime scene. The investigator who made the comment "When theres no evidence, its the job of a good cop to create evidence.", or something to that same degree. Plus the HOURS of tapes of that same investigator making multiple racist comments.

You cant possibly NOT have a doubt in your mind over the persons innocents or guilt. Thus though i think he did it, i would not be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed a crime and obligated as a juror to aquit him of the charges. Im just trying to explain WHY he was aquitted, in the federal case, but it was possible to lose the civil case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CloudSquallandZidane

In a federal case, u must be proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. In a civil case however it just has to be 51% probable that ur at fault. Which is less than they need to arrest and charge u in a federal case i bet. Thus its alot easier for the plantiff to win, than a prosecutor.

(*Hang with me in these next 2 sections they have a point.*)

The DNA was left negelgently in the sun for 3 days by an investigator. The photo of the investigator with blood all over his show tracking it everywhere throughout the crime scene. The investigator who made the comment "When theres no evidence, its the job of a good cop to create evidence.", or something to that same degree. Plus the HOURS of tapes of that same investigator making multiple racist comments.

You cant possibly NOT have a doubt in your mind over the persons innocents or guilt. Thus though i think he did it, i would not be convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that he committed a crime and obligated as a juror to aquit him of the charges. Im just trying to explain WHY he was aquitted, in the federal case, but it was possible to lose the civil case.

---

thanks for putting that out there. i was gonna let him debate me on that one, but you went ahead and clear it up for me. Like i said in my post ealier, the rules for winning a civil case is differnt than winning a criminal case.

It's not "beyond the shadow of a doubt", because, like you said, there will always be some doubt. How do we know that aliens didn't come down from their planet, murder two innocent people, and then plant all the evidence to make it look like OJ did it before they left? How do we know it wasn't the one-armed man?

It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning, there's no other reasonable way to explain it. Which, for most people, this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To not think OJ is guilty would be unreasonable.

I'll add more later, just wanted to get that out there for now.

By the way. Don't make assumptions. You know what happens when you assume things right? I don't think Kobe Bryant raped that girl--you know why? Because I listened to the evidence. See what happens when you actually pay attention to the evidence in a case? I didn't think OJ was guilty either, until I saw all the evidence against him. But no, I don't think Kobe raped her, I think she had sex quite willingly with Kobe and then cried rape. He may have cheated on his wife, but he didn't rape that girl. (Hey, d'you see that? I said a black guy was innocent. Pay attention here.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

It's not "beyond the shadow of a doubt", because, like you said, there will always be some doubt. How do we know that aliens didn't come down from their planet, murder two innocent people, and then plant all the evidence to make it look like OJ did it before they left? How do we know it wasn't the one-armed man?

It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Meaning, there's no other reasonable way to explain it. Which, for most people, this case was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. To not think OJ is guilty would be unreasonable.

I'll add more later, just wanted to get that out there for now.

By the way. Don't make assumptions. You know what happens when you assume things right? I don't think Kobe Bryant raped that girl--you know why? Because I listened to the evidence. See what happens when you actually pay attention to the evidence in a case? I didn't think OJ was guilty either, until I saw all the evidence against him. But no, I don't think Kobe raped her, I think she had sex quite willingly with Kobe and then cried rape. He may have cheated on his wife, but he didn't rape that girl. (Hey, d'you see that? I said a black guy was innocent. Pay attention here.)

---

im jsut gonna end this silly debate between us two. We could argue about these things all day, and neither one of us is gonna budge an inch from our beliefs, we have both obviously led to completely different lives which causes us to view the country we live in two different ways.



to post on topic for once. We need freedom of speach.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

It's not "beyond the shadow of a doubt", because, like you said, there will always be some doubt.

It's proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

---

True. That particular point is withdrawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

I am certian it was this thread, but in many small towns, racism, amazingly enough, is not all that prominent. We got a black fella in our school just a bit ago.. and well he was brought to almost instant popularity cause he happened to be good at a particular sport. Another black fella several years ago was also fairly popular du to the fact that that he was funny.

Anyways, I know very well my school would discriminate against someon.. but it would be for thier interests/tastes and actions and not race.

It is obvious however that some areas of the US have some really extreme racism.. Disgusting really.. My teacher when he was stationed in the south how many years ago had a black buddy. This black buddy was not allowed to be served in several dinners, due to the fact that the owners would fire the waitresses for feeding a black person... Really disgusting.

---

do these black fella's have names.BEcuase if they dont i wouldnt wanna goto your school to be known as the black fellow.

LordBlazer if it really came down to it, I could ask my freinds if they remember the guys names. I don't generally associate out of my age group at school.. and I don't even socialize within my age group often. I much prefer to go out and talk with adults. Thus I don't know the guy. I know one Had Dreadlocks... and the funny one had his hair tied into a pig tail.

Anyways Mr. Dreadlocks had great basketball talent, and Mr. Pigtail was just fun to be around. And we do have several Mexican Americans here. They are actually some of the most popular kids.

I will tell you right now I sometimes can't recall my own name or birthdate. So you actually expect me to remember a name that is quite a bit dated(any more then a month is dated for me), particually considering I didn't associate. And Mr. Pigtail had a weird name I never pronounced right anyways, teased me about it actually. We won a model stock car tourney together once actually. But for the life of me I can't remember his name. Weasly is the closest I am getting, but I recall that Weasly was white.. not to mention a bully.

And before calling me racist. I am a wrestler. Wrestler and Basketball players naturally don't get along here. Our school is poor and can only adequetly fund one sport, can you guess which gets funded?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

LordBlazer if it really came down to it, I could ask my freinds if they remember the guys names. I don't generally associate out of my age group at school.. and I don't even socialize within my age group often. I much prefer to go out and talk with adults. Thus I don't know the guy. I know one Had Dreadlocks... and the funny one had his hair tied into a pig tail.

Anyways Mr. Dreadlocks had great basketball talent, and Mr. Pigtail was just fun to be around. And we do have several Mexican Americans here. They are actually some of the most popular kids.

I will tell you right now I sometimes can't recall my own name or birthdate. So you actually expect me to remember a name that is quite a bit dated(any more then a month is dated for me), particually considering I didn't associate. And Mr. Pigtail had a weird name I never pronounced right anyways, teased me about it actually. We won a model stock car tourney together once actually. But for the life of me I can't remember his name. Weasly is the closest I am getting, but I recall that Weasly was white.. not to mention a bully.

And before calling me racist. I am a wrestler. Wrestler and Basketball players naturally don't get along here. Our school is poor and can only adequetly fund one sport, can you guess which gets funded?

---

I never called you a racist.Yep people are too immature to debate.I'm not posting here anymore.(this particular thread that is)

He never said you did call him a racist. He was just expecting it, because it seems that anything deemed disrespectful towards a black person means that the person who made the comment is a "racist" in today's society--just like somebody who doesn't agree with homosexuality is called "homophobic", somebody who doesn't like their wife working would be "chauvanistic", etc. And he made a preemptive rebuttle to the comment that you quite possibly would have made. I'm sure he didn't mean any offense by it.

The better part of the post was focused on your comment of being the "black fellow". This happens. In my graduating class, there were only two black people, and if somebody didn't know their name, they would be referred to as "the black guy" or "that black girl"...well, the girl was often called many different things, but most people liked the guy. Also, we had less than 60 in our graduating class, so it was odd for people to not know names, but I came into the class as a Junior so I didn't know anybody...and that's how those two particular people were described to me. "H.L. is the black guy", and "(whatever the hell her name was) is the black girl". In fact, now that I think about it, I don't remember any other black people in high school when I was a senior, save those two and one more that came into our class but didn't graduate. Anyway. The point is, when you're the only one of a specific group, you are labeled--and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I moved up here (Wisconsin) from Georgia, and immediately people either knew me as "the new guy" or "the Georgian", seeing as I was not only the only new guy that year, but the only guy that was from Georgia.

Hmmm. ShunNakamura, I always thought you were a lady. Sorry 'bout that.

Thought I was a LADY?! WTH... why does that always happen.. It happens when I meet someone new in person and it happens online!!!!

Ah well, guess I am used to it by now.

And yes I was using the Pre-emptive rebuttle as just that. And it wasn't directed straight at LordBlazer, but rather to anyone who read it and started to think that.

And LordBlazer before throwing out the immature comment. Remember, when righting a essay(which in debates each post could almost be considered an essay) you must predict the oppositions response and cancel it out. Therefor I predicted a response I commonly see(not neccesarily saying YOU would think that, but I cover my bases) and then blocked it.

Simple analogy: If you see someone moving in a certian way in wrestling you can predict what they would do.. now you may be wrong(as it appears I was here) but if you just stand there.. well you ain't gonna win the match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

Thought I was a LADY?! WTH... why does that always happen.. It happens when I meet someone new in person and it happens online!!!!

Ah well, guess I am used to it by now.

And yes I was using the Pre-emptive rebuttle as just that. And it wasn't directed straight at LordBlazer, but rather to anyone who read it and started to think that.

And LordBlazer before throwing out the immature comment. Remember, when righting a essay(which in debates each post could almost be considered an essay) you must predict the oppositions response and cancel it out. Therefor I predicted a response I commonly see(not neccesarily saying YOU would think that, but I cover my bases) and then blocked it.

Simple analogy: If you see someone moving in a certian way in wrestling you can predict what they would do.. now you may be wrong(as it appears I was here) but if you just stand there.. well you ain't gonna win the match.

---

As for you i wasn't serious i was obviously messing around with you in a serious debate.I meant it in a lighthearted way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

He never said you did call him a racist. He was just expecting it, because it seems that anything deemed disrespectful towards a black person means that the person who made the comment is a "racist" in today's society--just like somebody who doesn't agree with homosexuality is called "homophobic", somebody who doesn't like their wife working would be "chauvanistic", etc. And he made a preemptive rebuttle to the comment that you quite possibly would have made. I'm sure he didn't mean any offense by it.

The better part of the post was focused on your comment of being the "black fellow". This happens. In my graduating class, there were only two black people, and if somebody didn't know their name, they would be referred to as "the black guy" or "that black girl"...well, the girl was often called many different things, but most people liked the guy. Also, we had less than 60 in our graduating class, so it was odd for people to not know names, but I came into the class as a Junior so I didn't know anybody...and that's how those two particular people were described to me. "H.L. is the black guy", and "(whatever the hell her name was) is the black girl". In fact, now that I think about it, I don't remember any other black people in high school when I was a senior, save those two and one more that came into our class but didn't graduate. Anyway. The point is, when you're the only one of a specific group, you are labeled--and that's not necessarily a bad thing. I moved up here (Wisconsin) from Georgia, and immediately people either knew me as "the new guy" or "the Georgian", seeing as I was not only the only new guy that year, but the only guy that was from Georgia.

Hmmm. ShunNakamura, I always thought you were a lady. Sorry 'bout that.

---

As for you Sas........You think you have it all down uh?Well you don't...The only reason why you can find people who agree with you is

1.They're white
2.They're American
3.They are too much into their personal lives to see the world around them.
4.THey don't even want to understand what other shave to deal with so they just deny it.
...
Another thing is you Sas.When you debated you sounded immature.You had to say a comment that was stupid or was meant to be an insult towards the party opposing you.I understand how you feel on the issue but really.You are astray from the issue.Thats why you say that in American Society everyone is assemilated.Which in fact is really far from the truth.The groups of people you think get it easier in life actually worked twice as hard.Harder than you worked and will ever have to work.I don't expect any Caucasin American to understand it mainly because they don't have to deal with it.Even though its in front of them in their everyday life.Thats the message I was trying to get accross.Your intellgent,but your IQ doesn't determine what you know and understand.Intellegence is just used on how well you can understand the world around you and how you can adapt to see it fit you.Simply put as humans we really only get to go by experience.If you haven't experience the huddles a minority goes through then you really won't understand it clearly.It will be really really fuzzzy to grasp it.

Well as I said thats the last time I post on here.Its best we change the subject...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

As for you Sas........You think you have it all down uh?Well you don't...The only reason why you can find people who agree with you is

1.They're white
2.They're American
3.They are too much into their personal lives to see the world around them.
4.THey don't even want to understand what other shave to deal with so they just deny it.
...
Another thing is you Sas.When you debated you sounded immature.You had to say a comment that was stupid or was meant to be an insult towards the party opposing you.I understand how you feel on the issue but really.You are astray from the issue.Thats why you say that in American Society everyone is assemilated.Which in fact is really far from the truth.The groups of people you think get it easier in life actually worked twice as hard.Harder than you worked and will ever have to work.I don't expect any Caucasin American to understand it mainly because they don't have to deal with it.Even though its in front of them in their everyday life.Thats the message I was trying to get accross.Your intellgent,but your IQ doesn't determine what you know and understand.Intellegence is just used on how well you can understand the world around you and how you can adapt to see it fit you.Simply put as humans we really only get to go by experience.If you haven't experience the huddles a minority goes through then you really won't understand it clearly.It will be really really fuzzzy to grasp it.

Well as I said thats the last time I post on here.Its best we change the subject...

---

You said it best with this. He doesnt understand the woes of the minority and will never understand because he doesnt have to. Its not that your racist or im racist or lordblazer is racist. no, it has nothing to do with it. But as ive said before, you cant truely understand what the minorities go through because they dont affect you. Just like i will probably never understand the woes of rich white people. Thats why when i here you talking about Black people who are underqualified are taking jobs due to Afirmative Action, its angers me. It angers me because your complaining, but the playing field isnt level to begin with. Just imagin how many black people, or really any minority, wouldnt get hired in some places if it was for the fact that you have to hire minorities. And not only that, but AA also covers making sure Women get hired in places, not just minorites. Now these few instances of underqualified people getting hired should not even be an arguement because white people still make up the majority of the work force. You have no reason to complain.

But all of this is neither here nor there. Sasquatch, your problem is that you insult people when you try to make a point. You dont even have to go that route. it only serves to prove your arogance and ignorance.

Hahaha. Well, I will tell y'all this. The point of a debate, if you haven't realized, is not to change the stance of your opponent. It's not "I'm gonna debate with you until you change your mind". The point of a debate is to change the minds of the other people who may be listening, who may have or may not have already decided. And what's the best way to do that? The way I figure, as I have for years, it's to make your opponent look stupid. If somebody watching can say "well that guy is alright, but he keeps making the other guy sound like a moron," then who is he gonna listen to more? Plus, I'm a smartass, and it comes easy to me. By the way, how many times have I insulted either of you? I may strike down one of the points you try to make, and I may say some things that you take offense to, but that doesn't mean I've insulted you. The only way you can stop that kind of thing is to make sure you think things over when you say them, and don't say things that can easily be turned around and made to look stupid. Ain't too hard to figure out.

Basically, lordblazer, you're telling me that I don't know anything about minorities because I'm not one, and AkiraMakie, you're telling me that it's alright for people to be discriminated against because of their skin color, but only if it's against white people. Both of y'all think that America is racist against all minorities and sexist against women, and that you have it so hard compared to every single white man because all the white men are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't have to work half as hard as anybody else does. White men have it so good, they have everything given to them, and everybody else--whether it be women, black people, hispanics, any minority--has to work harder than white men could imagine working.

And to both of you. Don't make comments on my personal life. Neither of you have any idea how hard I've had to work, or how hard I will have to work, or even what I'm working towards. And neither of you have a clue what I've been through or what I go through, and what I've experienced, either.

Tell you what. Here's an example of "what you have to go through". You go out and try to get a job somewhere, one of four things will happen.

1. Hired, because you're best qualified.
2. Hired, because even though you're poorly qualified, you're a minority.
3. Not hired, because you're not qualified.
4. Not hired, because you may be qualified, but you're black.

If you're hired, you should have no problems...unless you're hired because of your skin color, then you should have a problem with that, but you wouldn't. If you're not qualified, too bad, you're not good enough for the job and you were passed over in favor of somebody who was qualified. Understandable. Then we get to #4. You're passed over because America is racist and it trickles down to this employer, who of course is racist as all hell too, and he doesn't want to hire you because of your skin color. Do you know how easy it is to get a lawyer that wants a discrimination case? You sue, present your case in court, and if they find that you really did deserve the job and didn't get it because of your skin color (or gender), then the court would rule your way, and you'd be granted the money.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Everybody in the justice system is racist too.

By the way. Would it be fair for a white guy to go somewhere with a primarily black population, maybe inner-city somewhere, and demand a job? And then say they're racist when he doesn't get it? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a black person going somewhere with a primarily white population and saying the employer is racist when he doesn't get hired? Oh, sorry, forgot that too. Mind seems to be slipping today. Minorities can't be racist, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Hahaha. Well, I will tell y'all this. The point of a debate, if you haven't realized, is not to change the stance of your opponent. It's not "I'm gonna debate with you until you change your mind". The point of a debate is to change the minds of the other people who may be listening, who may have or may not have already decided. And what's the best way to do that? The way I figure, as I have for years, it's to make your opponent look stupid. If somebody watching can say "well that guy is alright, but he keeps making the other guy sound like a moron," then who is he gonna listen to more? Plus, I'm a smartass, and it comes easy to me. By the way, how many times have I insulted either of you? I may strike down one of the points you try to make, and I may say some things that you take offense to, but that doesn't mean I've insulted you. The only way you can stop that kind of thing is to make sure you think things over when you say them, and don't say things that can easily be turned around and made to look stupid. Ain't too hard to figure out.

Basically, lordblazer, you're telling me that I don't know anything about minorities because I'm not one, and AkiraMakie, you're telling me that it's alright for people to be discriminated against because of their skin color, but only if it's against white people. Both of y'all think that America is racist against all minorities and sexist against women, and that you have it so hard compared to every single white man because all the white men are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't have to work half as hard as anybody else does. White men have it so good, they have everything given to them, and everybody else--whether it be women, black people, hispanics, any minority--has to work harder than white men could imagine working.

And to both of you. Don't make comments on my personal life. Neither of you have any idea how hard I've had to work, or how hard I will have to work, or even what I'm working towards. And neither of you have a clue what I've been through or what I go through, and what I've experienced, either.

Tell you what. Here's an example of "what you have to go through". You go out and try to get a job somewhere, one of four things will happen.

1. Hired, because you're best qualified.
2. Hired, because even though you're poorly qualified, you're a minority.
3. Not hired, because you're not qualified.
4. Not hired, because you may be qualified, but you're black.

If you're hired, you should have no problems...unless you're hired because of your skin color, then you should have a problem with that, but you wouldn't. If you're not qualified, too bad, you're not good enough for the job and you were passed over in favor of somebody who was qualified. Understandable. Then we get to #4. You're passed over because America is racist and it trickles down to this employer, who of course is racist as all hell too, and he doesn't want to hire you because of your skin color. Do you know how easy it is to get a lawyer that wants a discrimination case? You sue, present your case in court, and if they find that you really did deserve the job and didn't get it because of your skin color (or gender), then the court would rule your way, and you'd be granted the money.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Everybody in the justice system is racist too.

By the way. Would it be fair for a white guy to go somewhere with a primarily black population, maybe inner-city somewhere, and demand a job? And then say they're racist when he doesn't get it? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a black person going somewhere with a primarily white population and saying the employer is racist when he doesn't get hired? Oh, sorry, forgot that too. Mind seems to be slipping today. Minorities can't be racist, right?

---

Haha, like i said before, you will never understand. Im not even gonna break down every paragraph and respond cause its obvious your not even reading them. Your not making anyone else look like a moron, you making yourself look stupid. After we specificially say something, you turn it around and its almost as if we never even responded. You never see anyone that debates in real life sling around insults all day to make someone look idiotic, they let their point do that. All You do is throw around insults and when you do that, your main point is lost to some people cause all your doing is "trying" to make someone look stupid, not accually trying to make your point.

Throughout our post, neither I nor Lordblazer has said that its ok to descrimnate agaisnt anybody. I personally have even said in one of my post that some black people and minorities ARE racist but that neither are right. I never even said america was a sexist country, but yeah, it is, now that you mention it. But thats another story.

GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. No one is saying every white man/person is born with a silver spoon in their. What we are saying is that, no matter how bad you may have it in this country, you will never have it as bad as a minority. Whats so hard to believe about that?

You point a finger at me and lordblazer, but neither one of us has made any racist remarks. If we have, please post the ones you think were racist. i would love to see your definition of a racist remark.

Your right though, the point of a debate isnt to change the other persons mind. Obviously you could never change the mind of a person so close minded as yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

By the way. Would it be fair for a white guy to go somewhere with a primarily black population, maybe inner-city somewhere, and demand a job? And then say they're racist when he doesn't get it? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a black person going somewhere with a primarily white population and saying the employer is racist when he doesn't get hired? Oh, sorry, forgot that too. Mind seems to be slipping today. Minorities can't be racist, right?

---

haha, i almost let this little one slip by. Man i swear you live in some world.
"Wouldn't that be the same thing as a black person going somewhere with a primarily white population and saying the employer is racist when he doesn't get hired?"
Man, i laughed at this one. Your are something else Sasquatch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Hahaha. Well, I will tell y'all this. The point of a debate, if you haven't realized, is not to change the stance of your opponent. It's not "I'm gonna debate with you until you change your mind". The point of a debate is to change the minds of the other people who may be listening, who may have or may not have already decided. And what's the best way to do that? The way I figure, as I have for years, it's to make your opponent look stupid. If somebody watching can say "well that guy is alright, but he keeps making the other guy sound like a moron," then who is he gonna listen to more? Plus, I'm a smartass, and it comes easy to me. By the way, how many times have I insulted either of you? I may strike down one of the points you try to make, and I may say some things that you take offense to, but that doesn't mean I've insulted you. The only way you can stop that kind of thing is to make sure you think things over when you say them, and don't say things that can easily be turned around and made to look stupid. Ain't too hard to figure out.

Basically, lordblazer, you're telling me that I don't know anything about minorities because I'm not one, and AkiraMakie, you're telling me that it's alright for people to be discriminated against because of their skin color, but only if it's against white people. Both of y'all think that America is racist against all minorities and sexist against women, and that you have it so hard compared to every single white man because all the white men are born with a silver spoon in their mouth and don't have to work half as hard as anybody else does. White men have it so good, they have everything given to them, and everybody else--whether it be women, black people, hispanics, any minority--has to work harder than white men could imagine working.

And to both of you. Don't make comments on my personal life. Neither of you have any idea how hard I've had to work, or how hard I will have to work, or even what I'm working towards. And neither of you have a clue what I've been through or what I go through, and what I've experienced, either.

Tell you what. Here's an example of "what you have to go through". You go out and try to get a job somewhere, one of four things will happen.

1. Hired, because you're best qualified.
2. Hired, because even though you're poorly qualified, you're a minority.
3. Not hired, because you're not qualified.
4. Not hired, because you may be qualified, but you're black.

If you're hired, you should have no problems...unless you're hired because of your skin color, then you should have a problem with that, but you wouldn't. If you're not qualified, too bad, you're not good enough for the job and you were passed over in favor of somebody who was qualified. Understandable. Then we get to #4. You're passed over because America is racist and it trickles down to this employer, who of course is racist as all hell too, and he doesn't want to hire you because of your skin color. Do you know how easy it is to get a lawyer that wants a discrimination case? You sue, present your case in court, and if they find that you really did deserve the job and didn't get it because of your skin color (or gender), then the court would rule your way, and you'd be granted the money.

Oh, sorry, I forgot. Everybody in the justice system is racist too.

By the way. Would it be fair for a white guy to go somewhere with a primarily black population, maybe inner-city somewhere, and demand a job? And then say they're racist when he doesn't get it? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a black person going somewhere with a primarily white population and saying the employer is racist when he doesn't get hired? Oh, sorry, forgot that too. Mind seems to be slipping today. Minorities can't be racist, right?

---

Wow, I usually don't agree with Sasquatch, but I actually agree with every last word of that (and I'm Hispanic, among other things).

I don't see where "Would it be fair for a white guy to go somewhere with a primarily black population, maybe inner-city somewhere, and demand a job? And then say they're racist when he doesn't get it? Wouldn't that be the same thing as a black person going somewhere with a primarily white population and saying the employer is racist when he doesn't get hired? Oh, sorry, forgot that too. Mind seems to be slipping today. Minorities can't be racist, right?" is wrong or "of some other world", because it's a good point. People do seem to think only white people can be racist. A good example is stand up comedy: look at black comedians, and the majority of them have atleast a few, if not a ton of cracks at white people...and it's funny...people laugh at it...white and black people alike...and they usually make cracks at black people too...it's all cool. But if a white comedian got up on stage and started cracking jokes about black people (despite if he was cracking jokes at his own race as well), how many outcrys do you think there'd be at him being a racist/KKK member/Nazi?

I'm not saying there aren't racist white people, because I know perhaps better than most of the members on this board that there are, due to the area I live in...but there's a whole lot of racist black people too...I may not agree with his idea that the NAACP are racist like the KKK (because I think that's silly), but that last post of his is right on the money. There are racist people of every race...just white people have the history of controlling with it in this country, and oppressing others on a large scale. Does that matter? That's up to you, but I certainly think it does.

You are right about racism still exsisting though, if nothing else.

First off. I apoligize if I overreacted... but you do realize how many people would truely respond that way? Plus I dont' really know many of you as yet, so I am unsure when and where a wisecrack is placed.

Now secondly.

black people make 62 cents for every dollar a white man makes, FOR THE SAME JOB.

Women make 76 cents for every dollar a male makes, FOR THE SAME JOB.

These are national statistics for the year 2000... I would get newer ones but I am lazy at the moment... plus I got more work to do before I leave in the hour and I want to post this.

Thirdly,

Affirmitive action, or more specifically quotas are a form of the so called "reversed discrimination". That is the lazy way out.. I may be lazy,but even I konw that creating discrimination out of laziness is wrong, and I would strive against it.

What needs to be done is;

1- Get the wages of all minorities up to the wages of the white males.. I mean really, it doesn't matter if they have a job or not.. they still are getting payed roughly half as much.

2-Get rid of the AA, the only time it is needed is if a canidate is rejected for racial reasons.. and I believe as was said above... many lawyers would take up the case.

Now another thing that creates this illusion that only whites are racist... is the fact that we call discrimination against whites, "reversed discrimination". That term needs to be corrected.

On top of all this I can understand what, to a certian extent(which is greater then what you may think), what minorities go through. I have always had the ability to view things from another's view... it may take a bit of time.. but I can usualy manage in the end.

However I look at the large picture.. petty disturbances don't bother me. On a large, AA(quota based), creates a form of resentment in white americans... this resentment can lead to discrimination remaining. You need to protect the rights of minorities without creating undue resentment. AA that is quota based is UNFAIR... due to the fact that a less qualifed can beat out one more qualified.. doesn't matter if the person is white, black or purple.

Now to the off-hand comments. Sasquatch shows that he has read your comments, he just doesn't aggree with them, or possibly they just went around him... I reread many of the people's post twice to be sure I caught it all. As for making himself look stupid, no not really, maybe aggressive, but that really isn't always a bad thing. The inults are natural in debates.. I'll tell you that now.,. I see them alot.. and I love debating. Profesional debates are another story.. you plan more for them. But when you come up and just start debating on the fly, insults will also fly. I am certian Sasquatch was not trying to destroy you self-esteem.. he just doesn't believe in your ideas.. and makes that clear.

As for not understanding how it is for minorities, that is true, most do not realize that a black man makes so little money per 1$ an american makes. Also did you know latino wages have gone down.. in the 1970's I believe it was they made 75 cents or so for every dollar a white man made. In 1998(this is really old) they only made 70 cents!

Yes something must be done, BUT NOT QUOTAS, rather we must balance wages and ensure minorities still get EQUAL chances, we cannot afford to create hostilities on other sides. My teacher knows black people who dislike AA, for they can never be sure whether or not they were the best qualified for their job!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ShunNakamura

First off. I apoligize if I overreacted... but you do realize how many people would truely respond that way? Plus I dont' really know many of you as yet, so I am unsure when and where a wisecrack is placed.

Now secondly.

black people make 62 cents for every dollar a white man makes, FOR THE SAME JOB.

Women make 76 cents for every dollar a male makes, FOR THE SAME JOB.

These are national statistics for the year 2000... I would get newer ones but I am lazy at the moment... plus I got more work to do before I leave in the hour and I want to post this.

Thirdly,

Affirmitive action, or more specifically quotas are a form of the so called "reversed discrimination". That is the lazy way out.. I may be lazy,but even I konw that creating discrimination out of laziness is wrong, and I would strive against it.

What needs to be done is;

1- Get the wages of all minorities up to the wages of the white males.. I mean really, it doesn't matter if they have a job or not.. they still are getting payed roughly half as much.

2-Get rid of the AA, the only time it is needed is if a canidate is rejected for racial reasons.. and I believe as was said above... many lawyers would take up the case.

Now another thing that creates this illusion that only whites are racist... is the fact that we call discrimination against whites, "reversed discrimination". That term needs to be corrected.

On top of all this I can understand what, to a certian extent(which is greater then what you may think), what minorities go through. I have always had the ability to view things from another's view... it may take a bit of time.. but I can usualy manage in the end.

However I look at the large picture.. petty disturbances don't bother me. On a large, AA(quota based), creates a form of resentment in white americans... this resentment can lead to discrimination remaining. You need to protect the rights of minorities without creating undue resentment. AA that is quota based is UNFAIR... due to the fact that a less qualifed can beat out one more qualified.. doesn't matter if the person is white, black or purple.

Now to the off-hand comments. Sasquatch shows that he has read your comments, he just doesn't aggree with them, or possibly they just went around him... I reread many of the people's post twice to be sure I caught it all. As for making himself look stupid, no not really, maybe aggressive, but that really isn't always a bad thing. The inults are natural in debates.. I'll tell you that now.,. I see them alot.. and I love debating. Profesional debates are another story.. you plan more for them. But when you come up and just start debating on the fly, insults will also fly. I am certian Sasquatch was not trying to destroy you self-esteem.. he just doesn't believe in your ideas.. and makes that clear.

As for not understanding how it is for minorities, that is true, most do not realize that a black man makes so little money per 1$ an american makes. Also did you know latino wages have gone down.. in the 1970's I believe it was they made 75 cents or so for every dollar a white man made. In 1998(this is really old) they only made 70 cents!

Yes something must be done, BUT NOT QUOTAS, rather we must balance wages and ensure minorities still get EQUAL chances, we cannot afford to create hostilities on other sides. My teacher knows black people who dislike AA, for they can never be sure whether or not they were the best qualified for their job!

---

WEll

1.this is a free enterprise market
2.the reason why minorities and women get paid less than white male is because the employers are really racist and can basicly do that and if it was up to them they would hire no minorities and pay women even less.Thus AA is sadly still needed....I don't agree with Sas mainly becauserealyl Sas if oyu went to a black side of town to get a job you would get it if your qualified for it mainly because there aren't mainly racist black people who would keep you from a paying job to support yourself and your family.Simply put yeah minorities are racist but we keep it to ourselves mainly because the caucasins in power really really dont view us well.Also may I add that yeah minorities really are look at by caucasins like some kind of animal.If we do something amazing its like wowwwwwwwwwwww look a them and that pisses you off Sas but you know what we don't ask for it and we don't want that.Like how i saw on TV the republican convention showedcase on camera minorities.To tell mainly the caucasin audience that"Hey the republican party has minorities we are't racist or whatever.."You guys are dealing with your race when it comes to "reverse racism".SImply put Sas you will definately know when you are discrimnated against and even put down because of your race.YOu can care or not.Simply put you have to stop caring for it.But youw ill definately know.It won't me a maybe it will be a solid yes or no.

Thanks DMKA, I know you usually don't agree with me, but it's nice to see that somebody else knows what's really going on, especially a minority.

Affirmitave Action is discrimination based on skin color. Neither of you have said that Affirmative Action is okay? You sure 'bout that?

I have yet to say that racism against blacks, hispanics, etc. doesn't exist. It does. It always has, and I wouldn't doubt that it always will, in some forms, and in some places. You go to some other countries, and you will REALLY be looked down upon because of your race--as far as I understand, the Japanese really don't like anybody that isn't of Japanese descent, especially black people. But saying that society as a whole is racist against black people, or that minorities have to work so much harder than white people do, is completely ridiculous.

ShunNakamura, according to them, unless you're black, you have no idea what a black person goes through. Doesn't matter if you've been around, if you've seen it, if you've been through it, unless you're black, you got no clue. Makes a hellovalotta sense, don't it?

I'm not sure about those financial statistics. From what I know, most of those stats are very general, and don't mean "for the same job", or for a job at all. I've looked into quite a few of the "these people make less money than these people" and discovered that, for the most part, they are based on the general population. Which would include everybody, ranging from the unemployed to burger-flippers to CEOs. (Oh, sorry, forgot, everybody's not only racist in the sense that they pay white men better, they're also racist enough to give all the good jobs to only white men, right? Don't say you weren't gonna use that.) Even so, you would have to consider their qualifications, their attendence, their performance, their attitude, etc. to figure out what's really "fair" and what's not. You'd have to look into the numbers on statistics like that.

'ShunNakamura, according to them, unless you're black, you have no idea what a black person goes through. Doesn't matter if you've been around, if you've seen it, if you've been through it, unless you're black, you got no clue. Makes a hellovalotta sense, don't it?"
That Sas is what we didn't say......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lordblazer

'ShunNakamura, according to them, unless you're black, you have no idea what a black person goes through. Doesn't matter if you've been around, if you've seen it, if you've been through it, unless you're black, you got no clue. Makes a hellovalotta sense, don't it?"
That Sas is what we didn't say......

---

No damn that. im saying that. He doesnt know what its like to be black. Plain and simple. I dont know whats its like to be white. I dont fully understand some of the problems white people go through. So whats so hard to understand that he doesnt know what is like to be black, cause he cant and never will be able to be black. Geez, it's that simple. He will never be called a nigger. He will never be turned down a job because your black. He will never be denied opportunites because he's black, he will never have to live in a world where he make less than the next man for the same work. plain and simple. its not hard to understand.


[q=Sasquatch]
I have yet to say that racism against blacks, hispanics, etc. doesn't exist. It does. It always has, and I wouldn't doubt that it always will, in some forms, and in some places. You go to some other countries, and you will REALLY be looked down upon because of your race--as far as I understand, the Japanese really don't like anybody that isn't of Japanese descent, especially black people. But saying that society as a whole is racist against black people, or that minorities have to work so much harder than white people do, is completely ridiculous.
[/q]

What the hell does this have to do with anything. The japanese as a people dont like anybody thats not really japanese. Even other asians. Your point has no merit with this one because they dont like anybody. They dont really even like people that are half japanese half something else. And from what i understand, they dont especially like white people from america.

Your post also proves that you dont really read what others are writing, ShunNakamura even posted in defence of the fact that minorites half to work harder for the same things white people have. But ive noticed this with alot of your post, you tend to skip around anything you cant really argue cause you know you either dont know, or you know your wrong. Or maybe your so clouded by your personal beliefs on how things "SHOULD" be, that you dont want to hear some of these things.


[q=Sasquatch]
I'm not sure about those financial statistics. From what I know, most of those stats are very general, and don't mean "for the same job", or for a job at all. I've looked into quite a few of the "these people make less money than these people" and discovered that, for the most part, they are based on the general population. Which would include everybody, ranging from the unemployed to burger-flippers to CEOs. (Oh, sorry, forgot, everybody's not only racist in the sense that they pay white men better, they're also racist enough to give all the good jobs to only white men, right? Don't say you weren't gonna use that.) Even so, you would have to consider their qualifications, their attendence, their performance, their attitude, etc. to figure out what's really "fair" and what's not. You'd have to look into the numbers on statistics like that.
[/q]

yeah...right.

Yeah you looked into some of those things just like you followed the OJ simpson case in 94/95 when u was 9/10 years old. You give out a good bunch of BS, i'll give you that.

Well I was told those statistics were for the same job, and I have seen them mentioned many times in the same context, as well as read it many times. But I guess it is possible I missread(reading too much between the lines I have a problem with), or that it has improved(heck, my most recent statistic is 5 yrs old), or that I just got a looney book,


Ok I just looked it up in my Sociology Text, and it doesn't specify whether or not it was for the same job.. all though the stats listed there are slightly different then the ones the teacher had on his slide from when he started the class(we have changed texts, the one I know have is hitting it's 4th year... so I think it is more up to date then his slides, but maybe not, cause he takes refreasher courses consistently and changes his notes accordingly.)

Now lordblazer I said we need to get the wages up. If the wages of minorities were brought up(I was certian the teach told it was per dollar for the same job.... hmm... maybe I was hallucinating in class) the overall povertly lvl for minorities would drop... thus increasing equality... we DO NOT need quotas. I have no problem with the IDEAL of AA... the ideal is to promote minorities to get jobs. Instead it sets QUOTAS... and that means less qaulified people may get in.

Yes SOMETHING should be done, but NOT quotas. If the pay per dollar is lower, that MUST be fixed. I have said it again and again, Quotas are the lazy way out, and lazy in many cases is not good. See a connection perhaps?

Yes, many times, statistics like those are taken as general populations and not specific job fields. As in, they don't go around and talk to 1000 janitors and find out what they all get paid. And again, you would still have to consider the factors in why anybody would be getting paid more or less, which include attitude, attendance, performance, qualifications, experience, yadda yadda yadda.

lordblazer -- I apologize. YOU didn't say that nobody knew what you go through because they're not black. Wouldn't want to intentionally label you with such a ridiculous comment as such.

AkiraMakie -- Let's see. For one thing, yes, seeing as my parents were following the OJ case, I also tried to follow the OJ case (I've had an interest in law for quite some time), and I further researched it later in life. Whereas you, obviously, have done no research at all on the case. And yes, I have also researched financial statistics similar to the ones ShunNakamura posted, because I've had debates like this before, and been confronted with statistics like that, and had to look behind them.

The point about Japan was that no matter how "racist" you think America is, there are many places where people really are racist--something you're not used to.

By the way, when I'm replying to a post, I read it thoroughly, and usually break it down into seperate topics.

I'll never be turned down opportunities because I'm black? How about being turned down opportunities because I'm white? You think that never happens? Thank your precious Affirmative Action for that...oh, sorry, it's alright to discriminate upon race, but only if it's against white people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I'll never be turned down opportunities because I'm black? How about being turned down opportunities because I'm white? You think that never happens? Thank your precious Affirmative Action for that...oh, sorry, it's alright to discriminate upon race, but only if it's against white people.

---

Give me one good example of YOU being turned down something because you are white.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

Give me one good example of YOU being turned down something because you are white.

---

Say he goes to get a job, but the percentage of, say, african americans has not ben filled for that job, but they've already got a decent amount of white guys working there. Say him, and a african american guy both apply for that same job...the african american guy, going by affirmative action, will get the job, and he will be pushed aside...because he's white. Of course, it has a good intention, and it's not because him specifically, but it's still because he happened to be then and there, and he was white.

I think that's wrong, and I think who's best qualified should be hired reguardless. Because really Affirmative Action is pure and utter racism, but for a good cause (well that may be a matter of opinion). As much as I dislike it and think it's screwed up, I think it's still needed from what I see around me where I live, and that's why I support it.

If I believed we could get rid of it and have people hired fairly based upon qualifications and nothing else, than I'd be against it, but in areas like this, I just don't see it happening.

You still need to make sure people hire correctly(in other words best man/woman gets the job) BUT you DON'T need to do that with quotas. It may take some man power(providing more jobs.. and America could possibly use some more jobs) so it isn't an easy way out. But how often is the easy way, the right way? Quotas are the easy and lazy way out.

If the government is willing to take the easy way out on difficult problems, what is that teaching the upcoming Americans.. I mean really, people are lazy enough as is... and unfortunately I am one of them.. I have been changing that though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

Say he goes to get a job, but the percentage of, say, african americans has not ben filled for that job, but they've already got a decent amount of white guys working there. Say him, and a african american guy both apply for that same job...the african american guy, going by affirmative action, will get the job, and he will be pushed aside...because he's white. Of course, it has a good intention, and it's not because him specifically, but it's still because he happened to be then and there, and he was white.

I think that's wrong, and I think who's best qualified should be hired reguardless. Because really Affirmative Action is pure and utter racism, but for a good cause (well that may be a matter of opinion). As much as I dislike it and think it's screwed up, I think it's still needed from what I see around me where I live, and that's why I support it.

If I believed we could get rid of it and have people hired fairly based upon qualifications and nothing else, than I'd be against it, but in areas like this, I just don't see it happening.

---

I understand how AA works. I didnt ask him that. i asked for hime to give a personal example of being turned down something because of his race. Secondly, if you were turned down because of your race, you wouldnt know it cause the employer wouldnt tell you that. So how would you know weather or not the black person was more or less qualified than yourself. You could only assume, and assumptions dont mean a damn thing.

And yes, i think AA is a nesassary evil. If people hired fairly, we wouldnt need it. ShunNakamura keeps saying that Quotas are not the way, but i dont see any other way. other than AA , there is no other way to make sure people hired fairly. If there was, i would be all for it, but there isnt. And on top of that, through out all of this, no one has even mentioned(cept for myself) thatAA works in reverse as well.

If a white college student wanted to go to a prodominately black college he's almost certain to get in over other higher qualified black students. Same goes for prodominately black work places. But not one even mentions that. That make is seem like its black peoples fault that we even have AA, but it was so the playing field would be fair. I personally think that if AA was suddenly ended, it would go back to being the way it was before. But Sas doesnt even think that racism is as bad as we say. On top of that, he used japan's racism as an example. But th thing about that is, the japanese dont like others based on Nationality. If you were japanese, you would be accepted. But in america, the racism is differnt. Im not another nationality, im American. But in america, they dont judge by Nationality. They judge you by skin color. Which is a differnt type of racism all together. Im not accepted in my own native country. Which i believe is a more dangerous type of racism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

I understand how AA works. I didnt ask him that. i asked for hime to give a personal example of being turned down something because of his race. Secondly, if you were turned down because of your race, you wouldnt know it cause the employer wouldnt tell you that. So how would you know weather or not the black person was more or less qualified than yourself. You could only assume, and assumptions dont mean a damn thing.

And yes, i think AA is a nesassary evil. If people hired fairly, we wouldnt need it. ShunNakamura keeps saying that Quotas are not the way, but i dont see any other way. other than AA , there is no other way to make sure people hired fairly. If there was, i would be all for it, but there isnt. And on top of that, through out all of this, no one has even mentioned(cept for myself) thatAA works in reverse as well.

If a white college student wanted to go to a prodominately black college he's almost certain to get in over other higher qualified black students. Same goes for prodominately black work places. But not one even mentions that. That make is seem like its black peoples fault that we even have AA, but it was so the playing field would be fair. I personally think that if AA was suddenly ended, it would go back to being the way it was before. But Sas doesnt even think that racism is as bad as we say. On top of that, he used japan's racism as an example. But th thing about that is, the japanese dont like others based on Nationality. If you were japanese, you would be accepted. But in america, the racism is differnt. Im not another nationality, im American. But in america, they dont judge by Nationality. They judge you by skin color. Which is a differnt type of racism all together. Im not accepted in my own native country. Which i believe is a more dangerous type of racism.

---

Ah ok I get you.

Japan isn't "racist" in the sense that we think of racism here in the United States. See, the older generations of Japanese people, who were alive under the rule of the Empire, had an insane emperor who believed in "racial purity" (the Japanese infact had this ideology before the Germans did), but he didn't hate other people or want to kill them like the Nazis did, he just preached this BS that the Japanese were the superior race, seconded by the rest of Asians, and then everyone else was below them. Some people ate it up, some didn't. Most people that were born after 1970 are obsessed with people who aren't Japanese, and marketers will get black, white, and hispanic americans to be in YTV commercials and stuff in Japan, and that helps sell stuff...yeah. It's kind of like here we have older people who are all against interracial relationships...yeah, same principle.

But anyway...I better not get any further off topic (me and my Japan obsession), yeah, I think you stated my exact feelings with "a necessary evil". Sucks that it has to be that way. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

I understand how AA works. I didnt ask him that. i asked for hime to give a personal example of being turned down something because of his race.

---

A personal example? C'mon, I'm hardly 20 years old, I've spent most of the past two years I've been out of High School serving in the Army. When I start looking through jobs, etc. I'm sure I'll have more examples. But how about grants, scholarships, and the eligibility for loans that are restricted to those of races other than white? You ever see a white guy get an NAACP scholarship? We had two black people in our graduating class, and neither of them were in the top HALF, and both got at least one scholarship each. Not for sports, not for academics, not for community service, not for church...but because they were black. Now, how do you think the white guy that was third in the class felt when he saw that he was just barely not good enough to get most of the grants and scholarships, but if he was black, he wouldn't have to work for them? Hell, how would you feel if you made good grades, aced all your tests, and found out some guy in your school got a scholarship just because he was white?

Quote:

---

Secondly, if you were turned down because of your race, you wouldnt know it cause the employer wouldnt tell you that. So how would you know weather or not the black person was more or less qualified than yourself. You could only assume, and assumptions dont mean a damn thing.

---

You would only be able to know if you knew the person, or knew the employer, on a personal level, or had worked with the person, and you knew (or was told) of his qualifications, or lack thereof. Or, actually, it's easy to judge sometimes.

Quote:

---

And yes, i think AA is a nesassary evil. If people hired fairly, we wouldnt need it. ShunNakamura keeps saying that Quotas are not the way, but i dont see any other way. other than AA , there is no other way to make sure people hired fairly.

---

How do you know if people don't hire fairly? AA has been around all your life. I've already said this before, but if there were no AA, and employers were given the freedom to choose who they want to hire, and a black person was denied a job based solely upon skin color, he would sue the hell out of the business. So even if somebody is racist (which, of course, everybody is, right?), they wouldn't let that play a role in their hiring selection. Quotas are definitely not the way--you don't see any other way, but that doesn't mean there aren't other, better ways. There are checks and balances all over the place that ensure fair hiring. Hiring is fair. And it will be fair, because people will play the race card at every possible chance, and employers know this.

Quote:

---

If a white college student wanted to go to a prodominately black college he's almost certain to get in over other higher qualified black students. Same goes for prodominately black work places. But not one even mentions that. That make is seem like its black peoples fault that we even have AA, but it was so the playing field would be fair.

---

First off, what white student would want to go to a black college? He'd get his ass kicked, for one thing. And black people go to black colleges not for the education, but for the name and the environment. It looks good to other black people that they went to such-and-such black college.

Second... Are you sure it would apply to white people as well? You have a source for that? Even so, when would it be appropriate? If a white guy went somewhere to apply for a job, and there was not one black person working there who was less qualified than he was, and he was turned down...would the white guy say "damn, I just ain't good enough", or would he say "you MUST hire me because I'm WHITE!"?

Quote:

---

On top of that, he used japan's racism as an example. But th thing about that is, the japanese dont like others based on Nationality. If you were japanese, you would be accepted. But in america, the racism is differnt. Im not another nationality, im American. But in america, they dont judge by Nationality. They judge you by skin color. Which is a differnt type of racism all together. Im not accepted in my own native country. Which i believe is a more dangerous type of racism.

---

That's because Japan is mainly, hmmm let's see, Japanese. America is a mix of many different colors, cultures, and languages. You can't look at somebody in America and say "That guy isn't from here!" Unless you're in Wisconsin and the guy's speaking Mandarin or something, then you don't know. You aren't any other nationality, but you are the descendant of another nationality, and it's easy to see that your ancestors didn't come over as settlers from England.

Affirmative Action is far from a "necessary evil". Quota-based hiring systems are wrong, period. Not necessary, not needed, not helping, just wrong. As a black person, you should be offended that jobs are being given to you.

Quote:

---

A personal example? C'mon, I'm hardly 20 years old, I've spent most of the past two years I've been out of High School serving in the Army. When I start looking through jobs, etc. I'm sure I'll have more examples. But how about grants, scholarships, and the eligibility for loans that are restricted to those of races other than white? You ever see a white guy get an NAACP scholarship? We had two black people in our graduating class, and neither of them were in the top HALF, and both got at least one scholarship each. Not for sports, not for academics, not for community service, not for church...but because they were black. Now, how do you think the white guy that was third in the class felt when he saw that he was just barely not good enough to get most of the grants and scholarships, but if he was black, he wouldn't have to work for them? Hell, how would you feel if you made good grades, aced all your tests, and found out some guy in your school got a scholarship just because he was white?

---

That's true, but you can get scholarships for lots of things.

There's a scholarship for athletic woman.
http://www.studentawards.com/feature...oken=&fid=6873

Here's some for whites too
http://www.eop.mu.edu/david/scholarships/ethnic.html

In fact you can get Scholarships based solely on your choice of major. Also Irish apparently counts as a minority.
http://www.free-4u.com/minority.htm
Also Irish apparently counts as a minority.
http://www.rochesteririshfestival.or...olarships.html
You can get a scholarship for anything if you are willing to look for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

A personal example? C'mon, I'm hardly 20 years old, I've spent most of the past two years I've been out of High School serving in the Army. When I start looking through jobs, etc. I'm sure I'll have more examples. But how about grants, scholarships, and the eligibility for loans that are restricted to those of races other than white? You ever see a white guy get an NAACP scholarship? We had two black people in our graduating class, and neither of them were in the top HALF, and both got at least one scholarship each. Not for sports, not for academics, not for community service, not for church...but because they were black. Now, how do you think the white guy that was third in the class felt when he saw that he was just barely not good enough to get most of the grants and scholarships, but if he was black, he wouldn't have to work for them? Hell, how would you feel if you made good grades, aced all your tests, and found out some guy in your school got a scholarship just because he was white?

---

Like Gnostic Yevon said, they give scholor ships for alot of things. Plain and simple. your point has no merit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

You would only be able to know if you knew the person, or knew the employer, on a personal level, or had worked with the person, and you knew (or was told) of his qualifications, or lack thereof. Or, actually, it's easy to judge sometimes.

---

These are all pretty big if's. So these also have no real merit. And how is it possible to just tell? is it by the way someone looks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

How do you know if people don't hire fairly? AA has been around all your life. I've already said this before, but if there were no AA, and employers were given the freedom to choose who they want to hire, and a black person was denied a job based solely upon skin color, he would sue the hell out of the business. So even if somebody is racist (which, of course, everybody is, right?), they wouldn't let that play a role in their hiring selection. Quotas are definitely not the way--you don't see any other way, but that doesn't mean there aren't other, better ways. There are checks and balances all over the place that ensure fair hiring. Hiring is fair. And it will be fair, because people will play the race card at every possible chance, and employers know this.

---

Obviously they tried the hire fairly thing already. it didnt work. So obviously AA was needed. And your acting like it was black people who established AA. This was the work of the government. So, obviously, they thought america needed it. Obviously they thought we still need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

First off, what white student would want to go to a black college? He'd get his ass kicked, for one thing. And black people go to black colleges not for the education, but for the name and the environment. It looks good to other black people that they went to such-and-such black college.

---

So are you implying that black colleges arent as good as the white colleges? Basically you just said black colleges are only good on paper. See, this right here shows whats wrong with you as a person. You just gave a big "F- U up the ass to anyone who has ever graduated from a black college, gotten a Doctorate, or law degree or any other type agree from a black college. Its sad that you accually think that way though. This however shows your prejudice.

Also,Why do you believe a white person would get his ass kicked? Are you implying that all black people are racist to white people? Are you saying that black people are just naturally violent? Are you saying that there are no white people in Black colleges?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Second... Are you sure it would apply to white people as well? You have a source for that? Even so, when would it be appropriate? If a white guy went somewhere to apply for a job, and there was not one black person working there who was less qualified than he was, and he was turned down...would the white guy say "damn, I just ain't good enough", or would he say "you MUST hire me because I'm WHITE!"?

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

Take from that what you will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

That's because Japan is mainly, hmmm let's see, Japanese. America is a mix of many different colors, cultures, and languages. You can't look at somebody in America and say "That guy isn't from here!" Unless you're in Wisconsin and the guy's speaking Mandarin or something, then you don't know. You aren't any other nationality, but you are the descendant of another nationality, and it's easy to see that your ancestors didn't come over as settlers from England.

---

Damn right we didnt come over as settlers. at least we agree on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Affirmative Action is far from a "necessary evil". Quota-based hiring systems are wrong, period. Not necessary, not needed, not helping, just wrong. As a black person, you should be offended that jobs are being given to you.

---

No, however wrong it may be, i still believe it to be a nessasary evil.
As a white person, you should feel ashamed that your ancestors made it this way in the first place.

I see throughout this entire post that you're being arrogant, and not listening to a word I've said. But I'll still reply, lest somebody else is polluted by your lack of logic and "I'm black, gimme" attitude.

Yes, they do give scholarships for a lot of things. Mainly of being of descent of a certain country. How many scholarship qualifications are narrowed down to "must be of European descent"? How many scholarship qualifications list "must not be of African descent"? The point has merit, you just don't see it.

Pretty big 'ifs'? IF you know the guy, or IF you know the employer, or IF you've worked with the guy, or IF you know somebody else at the new job, or IF you found out in a multitude of other ways what the guy's qualifications were? Doesn't sound like extremely thin chances to me. And often, yes, you can spend five minutes with a guy and figure out how he works--and if you're discussing the job you're both competing for, it'd be easy to determine how qualified he is with just a few minutes. Again, valid point, you're just denying it.

Obviously you don't know if they tried actual fair hiring or not, because obviously you weren't around back then. Obviously you don't know if it works now or not either, because obviously they aren't trying it. And obviously "the government did it, it must be okay" doesn't work, or I could obviously argue for slavery, saying "well the government didn't make it illegal, so it was just fine...on top of that, the black people IN Africa that they bought the slaves from didn't have a problem with it either." And obviously black people pushed for programs like AA, and would obviously raise Hell if they were abolished. You take a program away that gives things to people, they're gonna get mad.

And would you please stop twisting around everything I say to try to make me look racist? You already think I'm racist enough just because I'm a white American, I don't need any more help. I never said that degrees from black colleges didn't mean anything. I was saying that black colleges don't give any better education than any other college (How many "white colleges" are there?), I was saying that people go there for the name and environment. I'm sure black colleges provide just as good of an education as any other colleges do.

As for the next comment, on whether or not black people are racist, or violent, or that there are no white people in black colleges... Here's your answer. Many black people are racist, there are very few white people in black colleges, and though many young black people are violent, I'm sure only the more intelectual, and thus civilized and non-violent, would go to those specific colleges.

Thank you for the link. I briefly skimmed through it and didn't find anything about white people being given things they don't deserve, like other races are. Would you mind pointing that section out to me? Should be easy to recall, I'm sure you've read it, correct?

Yes, as a white person, if I had ever owned slaves, I would be extremely ashamed of myself. If I had ever done anything against somebody simply because they were a different race, I would be ashamed. But I can't be held responsible for what people did more than two centuries ago, and I can't change any of that. You, however, CAN change things--or at least try--instead of sitting back and reaping the benefits of a culture that panders to people that aren't white. I know if somebody tried to give me a job because I was in a certain family, or because I was from a certain state, or because I was a certain color, and I didn't deserve it, I wouldn't accept it. It's too bad most people aren't above having things given to them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMKA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AkiraMakie

I understand how AA works. I didnt ask him that. i asked for hime to give a personal example of being turned down something because of his race. Secondly, if you were turned down because of your race, you wouldnt know it cause the employer wouldnt tell you that. So how would you know weather or not the black person was more or less qualified than yourself. You could only assume, and assumptions dont mean a damn thing.

And yes, i think AA is a nesassary evil. If people hired fairly, we wouldnt need it. ShunNakamura keeps saying that Quotas are not the way, but i dont see any other way. other than AA , there is no other way to make sure people hired fairly. If there was, i would be all for it, but there isnt. And on top of that, through out all of this, no one has even mentioned(cept for myself) thatAA works in reverse as well.

If a white college student wanted to go to a prodominately black college he's almost certain to get in over other higher qualified black students. Same goes for prodominately black work places. But not one even mentions that. That make is seem like its black peoples fault that we even have AA, but it was so the playing field would be fair. I personally think that if AA was suddenly ended, it would go back to being the way it was before. But Sas doesnt even think that racism is as bad as we say. On top of that, he used japan's racism as an example. But th thing about that is, the japanese dont like others based on Nationality. If you were japanese, you would be accepted. But in america, the racism is differnt. Im not another nationality, im American. But in america, they dont judge by Nationality. They judge you by skin color. Which is a differnt type of racism all together. Im not accepted in my own native country. Which i believe is a more dangerous type of racism.

---

Ah ok I get you.

Japan isn't "racist" in the sense that we think of racism here in the United States. See, the older generations of Japanese people, who were alive under the rule of the Empire, had an insane emperor who believed in "racial purity" (the Japanese infact had this ideology before the Germans did), but he didn't hate other people or want to kill them like the Nazis did, he just preached this BS that the Japanese were the superior race, seconded by the rest of Asians, and then everyone else was below them. Some people ate it up, some didn't. Most people that were born after 1970 are obsessed with people who aren't Japanese, and marketers will get black, white, and hispanic americans to be in YTV commercials and stuff in Japan, and that helps sell stuff...yeah. It's kind of like here we have older people who are all against interracial relationships...yeah, same principle.

But anyway...I better not get any further off topic (me and my Japan obsession), yeah, I think you stated my exact feelings with "a necessary evil". Sucks that it has to be that way. :(

---

except in america the older people are in there late 20s to early 40s that are against it also.Ten you have the kids that end up getting raised to hate other races.Then you really do have white people who aren't races but literally has a phobia towards black males.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I see throughout this entire post that you're being arrogant, and not listening to a word I've said. But I'll still reply, lest somebody else is polluted by your lack of logic and "I'm black, gimme" attitude.

Yes, they do give scholarships for a lot of things. Mainly of being of descent of a certain country. How many scholarship qualifications are narrowed down to "must be of European descent"? How many scholarship qualifications list "must not be of African descent"? The point has merit, you just don't see it.

Pretty big 'ifs'? IF you know the guy, or IF you know the employer, or IF you've worked with the guy, or IF you know somebody else at the new job, or IF you found out in a multitude of other ways what the guy's qualifications were? Doesn't sound like extremely thin chances to me. And often, yes, you can spend five minutes with a guy and figure out how he works--and if you're discussing the job you're both competing for, it'd be easy to determine how qualified he is with just a few minutes. Again, valid point, you're just denying it.

Obviously you don't know if they tried actual fair hiring or not, because obviously you weren't around back then. Obviously you don't know if it works now or not either, because obviously they aren't trying it. And obviously "the government did it, it must be okay" doesn't work, or I could obviously argue for slavery, saying "well the government didn't make it illegal, so it was just fine...on top of that, the black people IN Africa that they bought the slaves from didn't have a problem with it either." And obviously black people pushed for programs like AA, and would obviously raise Hell if they were abolished. You take a program away that gives things to people, they're gonna get mad.

And would you please stop twisting around everything I say to try to make me look racist? You already think I'm racist enough just because I'm a white American, I don't need any more help. I never said that degrees from black colleges didn't mean anything. I was saying that black colleges don't give any better education than any other college (How many "white colleges" are there?), I was saying that people go there for the name and environment. I'm sure black colleges provide just as good of an education as any other colleges do.

As for the next comment, on whether or not black people are racist, or violent, or that there are no white people in black colleges... Here's your answer. Many black people are racist, there are very few white people in black colleges, and though many young black people are violent, I'm sure only the more intelectual, and thus civilized and non-violent, would go to those specific colleges.

Thank you for the link. I briefly skimmed through it and didn't find anything about white people being given things they don't deserve, like other races are. Would you mind pointing that section out to me? Should be easy to recall, I'm sure you've read it, correct?

Yes, as a white person, if I had ever owned slaves, I would be extremely ashamed of myself. If I had ever done anything against somebody simply because they were a different race, I would be ashamed. But I can't be held responsible for what people did more than two centuries ago, and I can't change any of that. You, however, CAN change things--or at least try--instead of sitting back and reaping the benefits of a culture that panders to people that aren't white. I know if somebody tried to give me a job because I was in a certain family, or because I was from a certain state, or because I was a certain color, and I didn't deserve it, I wouldn't accept it. It's too bad most people aren't above having things given to them.

---

Why there aren't any scholarships jsut for those of european descent.

1.People of European descent holds teh most wealth in america
2.Are a majority
3.Has been able to hold the most wealth for really over 500 years since a white person stepped on this continent.
4.Kept people of other ethnic gorups on the bottom

So really I'm sorry for what your Ancestors did to mines but hey thats life and its still not holding oyu under because there are scholarships for people who are left handed dude.Do you hear me bitchin about how im right handed and can't qualify for it!?


edit- and i hated that comment on black colleges.The thing about black colleges is really yeah they hold your hand and help you get through a lot of things.YOu can get info easier.No white person wouldn't get his butt kick for going to one mainly because black people don't just plain hate whites like that and they'll get kicked out and a waste of there 20 grand.Their are white colleges that really black people don't want to go to.Mainly because they will be singled out.Sure there are black people that goto colleges like it but most are really too focussed on their goals and ignore all the bumps.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

I see throughout this entire post that you're being arrogant, and not listening to a word I've said. But I'll still reply, lest somebody else is polluted by your lack of logic and "I'm black, gimme" attitude.

Yes, they do give scholarships for a lot of things. Mainly of being of descent of a certain country. How many scholarship qualifications are narrowed down to "must be of European descent"? How many scholarship qualifications list "must not be of African descent"? The point has merit, you just don't see it.

Pretty big 'ifs'? IF you know the guy, or IF you know the employer, or IF you've worked with the guy, or IF you know somebody else at the new job, or IF you found out in a multitude of other ways what the guy's qualifications were? Doesn't sound like extremely thin chances to me. And often, yes, you can spend five minutes with a guy and figure out how he works--and if you're discussing the job you're both competing for, it'd be easy to determine how qualified he is with just a few minutes. Again, valid point, you're just denying it.

Obviously you don't know if they tried actual fair hiring or not, because obviously you weren't around back then. Obviously you don't know if it works now or not either, because obviously they aren't trying it. And obviously "the government did it, it must be okay" doesn't work, or I could obviously argue for slavery, saying "well the government didn't make it illegal, so it was just fine...on top of that, the black people IN Africa that they bought the slaves from didn't have a problem with it either." And obviously black people pushed for programs like AA, and would obviously raise Hell if they were abolished. You take a program away that gives things to people, they're gonna get mad.

And would you please stop twisting around everything I say to try to make me look racist? You already think I'm racist enough just because I'm a white American, I don't need any more help. I never said that degrees from black colleges didn't mean anything. I was saying that black colleges don't give any better education than any other college (How many "white colleges" are there?), I was saying that people go there for the name and environment. I'm sure black colleges provide just as good of an education as any other colleges do.

As for the next comment, on whether or not black people are racist, or violent, or that there are no white people in black colleges... Here's your answer. Many black people are racist, there are very few white people in black colleges, and though many young black people are violent, I'm sure only the more intelectual, and thus civilized and non-violent, would go to those specific colleges.

Thank you for the link. I briefly skimmed through it and didn't find anything about white people being given things they don't deserve, like other races are. Would you mind pointing that section out to me? Should be easy to recall, I'm sure you've read it, correct?

Yes, as a white person, if I had ever owned slaves, I would be extremely ashamed of myself. If I had ever done anything against somebody simply because they were a different race, I would be ashamed. But I can't be held responsible for what people did more than two centuries ago, and I can't change any of that. You, however, CAN change things--or at least try--instead of sitting back and reaping the benefits of a culture that panders to people that aren't white. I know if somebody tried to give me a job because I was in a certain family, or because I was from a certain state, or because I was a certain color, and I didn't deserve it, I wouldn't accept it. It's too bad most people aren't above having things given to them.

---

i dont have the time right now to answer to all of these so i will just pick out one.

[q=Sasquatch]
And would you please stop twisting around everything I say to try to make me look racist? You already think I'm racist enough just because I'm a white American, I don't need any more help. I never said that degrees from black colleges didn't mean anything. I was saying that black colleges don't give any better education than any other college (How many "white colleges" are there?), I was saying that people go there for the name and environment. I'm sure black colleges provide just as good of an education as any other colleges do.
[/q]

I wasnt twisting around your words to make you look racist, i responded to the exact way you posted. Let me post that passage again....


[q=Sasquatch]

First off, what white student would want to go to a black college? He'd get his ass kicked, for one thing. And black people go to black colleges not for the education, but for the name and the environment. It looks good to other black people that they went to such-and-such black college.[/q]

Now. this was, and still is, a very ignorant comment to make. it didnt sound anything like the BS you tried to cover it up with. And once again, I NEVER SAID ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE RACIST!

Also a quick point about Those scholorships, You still dont have a point. Why is it so bad that you can get a scholorship because of your skin color. Your crying because of that, but like said before, they have special interest scholorships for everthing. Could i get mad because i didnt get awarded a scholorship made for people who are in wheelchairs? No, because im not in a friggin wheelchair.


anywayz, i have to go to work, so i will make another post later after i get off.

Ah, not all white people, just the white culture. Gotcha.

First of all, you were trying to manipulate my words to make me look racist. Let's take a look, shall we?

"So are you implying that black colleges arent as good as the white colleges? Basically you just said black colleges are only good on paper. See, this right here shows whats wrong with you as a person. You just gave a big "F- U up the ass to anyone who has ever graduated from a black college, gotten a Doctorate, or law degree or any other type agree from a black college. Its sad that you accually think that way though. This however shows your prejudice.
Also,Why do you believe a white person would get his ass kicked? Are you implying that all black people are racist to white people? Are you saying that black people are just naturally violent? Are you saying that there are no white people in Black colleges?"

If you took my words to have some sort of racist connotation, then you should start reading things a little closer before you form judgements about 'em. I said that people don't go to all-black colleges because they give a better education, they go for the name and the environment. It would be just like a doctor wanting to go to a primarily medical college, or an engineer wanting to go to a big engineering college. Is the education any better, probably not, but the name looks good. The education is no doubt no worse than any other college. I wasn't trying to "cover it up", because it didn't need to be "covered up". I was trying to explain myself--even though I shouldn't have to--because you, obviously, didn't understand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

Ah, not all white people, just the white culture. Gotcha.

---

no, not the white culture, the american culture. It is still racist. Its not the same as it used to be. But its still there. Just because its not blatently put out for all to see doesnt mean it doesnt exist. But i guess some things need to be spelled out in BIG PRINT for you to notice it. if not, it must not exist to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

If you took my words to have some sort of racist connotation, then you should start reading things a little closer before you form judgements about 'em. I said that people don't go to all-black colleges because they give a better education, they go for the name and the environment. It would be just like a doctor wanting to go to a primarily medical college, or an engineer wanting to go to a big engineering college. Is the education any better, probably not, but the name looks good. The education is no doubt no worse than any other college. I wasn't trying to "cover it up", because it didn't need to be "covered up". I was trying to explain myself--even though I shouldn't have to--because you, obviously, didn't understand.

---

Ok, how was i supposed to get all of that BS you just wrote from...

[q=Sasquatch]
First off, what white student would want to go to a black college? He'd get his ass kicked, for one thing. And black people go to black colleges not for the education, but for the name and the environment. It looks good to other black people that they went to such-and-such black college.[/q]


There is no way to even begin to get the same message outta those two quotes. AND, taken in context with the rest of your post, that was not the message that came across. And on top of that, who even brought up weather or not a black college offers a better education than any other college? That had nothing to do with anything we were even talking about to begin with. You threw that out there to cover up the fact that you indeed made an ignorant comment.


See, but i see the way you post. You dont even begin to reply to the things you cant argue.

You also claim i dont listen to what your saying, but i hear you. you believe that minorites get too much help from the government. you believe we are all violent(more so than white people but there is really no way to prove that). You believe we are all racist ( more so than white people). And we need to shut the hell up about our problems cause they are not that bad.

i hear you loud and clear.

You try to make me out to be the racist, but what i dont understand is, why would i come and post on a board that is probablly 99% white people if i was so racist. All i ever said was that america is still a racist place. I also said, you will never know the racism black people and other minorities face because you will always be apart of the majority in this country. I never asked for anything to be handed to black people. All i ask is that things be fair in this country. And i said, AA may not be the right way, but its the only way that make things fair in this country right now. And its not jsut for black people. its for all people. AA isnt about the quotas for minorites. its about making sure that there is an equal number of all groups in workplaces,schools, etc.

But yet, you point the racist finger at me because i view the country we live in, in a different light than you do. I feel sad for people that dont really know how it is for minorities and they see you debating it with me and they accually thing your right about some of these things.

In all of your post you've always gone the extra mile to make the struggles of the minorities in this country look mild when you really have no idea( You even tried to make slavery seem like its black peoples fault because the africans sold us to the whites). You've also, on many occasions cast racist stereotypes on black people to try and prove your point. You do this often, and not just in this topic, but in a whole bunch of other topics as well.

But yet, you accuse me of racism when i have never made one ill statement about any race since ive posted. But thats how you operate. I through "Debating" with you on this. Its stupid. I refuse to even continue a conversation with someone who is so closed minded.


I hope one day something opens your eyes to some of these things that im talking about.

Ah, apologize again. Not just white culture, but American culture, is racist against black people. You go ahead and keep thinking that.

If you read that section of my post enough to actually understand it, you would have gathered that meaning. Instead, you saw it and immediately thought "oh, he's insulting black colleges, and people who graduated from black colleges, and all black people, I've got to get him for this, that bastard!" If you had understood it, you wouldn't have seen the "need" to badger me and call me a racist (yet again). You got a different meaning than was intended, and the faulty interpretation lies upon you.

I reply to everything that needs to be argued. What haven't I replied to because I "can't" argue it? I'd like to see it.

And if you read and understood what I post, you wouldn't be telling me what I think, and you definitely wouldn't be telling me that I think all black people are violent and racist. Where did I say all black people are violent or racist?

You say I'll "never know the racism black people face" because I'm not black. That would be about on the same level as me telling you, "Because of Affirmative Action, you will never know what it's like to work like a white person because you'll always be given jobs." I have been with black people, I have worked with black people and been to school with black people and fought with black people and lived with black people. I've seen black people play the race card at every opportunity, and I've seen other black people who despise other members of their race for expecting everything to be given to them. I'm not ignorant to what black people go through.

You say you "never asked for anything to be handed to black people". You say you just want things fair in America. Affirmative Action does not make things fair in this country, because it ensures that things are handed to black people. If things were fair in this country, then people would be able to earn jobs, scholarships, etc. based solely on their qualifications and not on their skin color. And that's the way it would be, if Affirmative Action didn't require quotas. AA does NOT work for "all people", it often awards unqualified minorities by depriving qualified white people. There should definitely not be an "equal number of all groups" anywhere, because our population does not reflect an "equal number of all groups". Based upon your "logic", with enough logic added to make it logical, only 12% of professional basketball players would be black.

When did I call you racist? Let's see, you think black people should be given opportunities, you think black people are at a disadvantage in American culture and it's white people's fault, you think it's perfectly fine to discriminate based upon skin color as long as it's against white people. Those are very racist attitudes. But I don't remember calling you specifically a racist.

And when in the hell did I say slavery was black people's fault? I pointed out that black Africans sold each other to white people, and that the trade and sale of slaves is still going on today in Africa, but I never mentioned anything along the lines of the fault lying on black people. Is that something you're intentionally manipulating, or do you really just not understand it?

If you decide to cease the debate, that's upon you. I believe I've already said that the point isn't to change the mind of your opponent, but to help change or make up the mind of a bystander. I know I won't change your mind, and you know you won't change my mind.

First, from Sasqautch's black college quote.. I did get what he was trying to get across.. although at the time I thought it not to be the best way to word his message, but, meh.. not everyone is perfect.

How can we get rid of quotas?

Hmm.. we could create a board of people to review ALL jobs that are taken, or the board could just view cases where racism was suspected. This would server two things.
1) it would even the playing field, people would get the job for thier qualifications. See, we can get rid of quotas, it just takes some work.

2) it would create jobs, and this may help raise America's standard of living, as it is now it is fairly difficult to break out of poverty. Education is the key to social mobility, and Education is better for those who have more money.

3) If it hired poorer people the job could require mandatory education in the basic subjects. This would raise thier education and thus help them get out of poverty.

So really... I don't see many problems with this, except ti would have to be watched and would require a fair amount of work... oh wait I forgot... Americans Are lazy.

That would work, but strong opposition would come from some of the black community simply because it would mean the end of racial hand-outs.

One of the things we should do is completely eliminate any "race/ethnic heritage" boxes or blanks on any and all applications. If it doesn't matter what color you are, why should you have to mark it down?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

When did I call you racist? Let's see, you think black people should be given opportunities, you think black people are at a disadvantage in American culture and it's white people's fault, you think it's perfectly fine to discriminate based upon skin color as long as it's against white people. Those are very racist attitudes. But I don't remember calling you specifically a racist.

---

Once again, i did say black people are at a disadvantage in america, but its not white peoples fault. Its americas fault. The slavery has left us to have to play catch up and we are just not there. America is still very racist place. When did i say it was ok to descriminate based on Skin color? I said in the very begining no one deserves to get descriminated on. But besides thinking black people are at a disadvantage in america, how does that make me have a racist attitude? I never made one bad remark towards white people. I never looked down upon white people, etc.


[q=Sasquatch]
You say I'll "never know the racism black people face" because I'm not black. That would be about on the same level as me telling you, "Because of Affirmative Action, you will never know what it's like to work like a white person because you'll always be given jobs." I have been with black people, I have worked with black people and been to school with black people and fought with black people and lived with black people. I've seen black people play the race card at every opportunity, and I've seen other black people who despise other members of their race for expecting everything to be given to them. I'm not ignorant to what black people go through.
[/q]

That analogy is BS. And since when has AA been about just handing out jobs to black people. Hell, no one just handed me a job. If thats the case, when am i gonna get handed my job. And Just because you know a few black people doesnt make you an expert on the black people. There are some black people that expect things to be given to them, but hell, there are some white people that expect things to be given to them, so what difference does it make. Also , you must be ignorant to what black people go through because you would obviously be respectful enough to at least acknowledge the racism and discrimanation we still face, but you act as if it doesnt exist. I mean, why would millions of black people all across the country exaggerate one point? I dont get it. If racism is not as bad as i say, why do even hard working black people (not the ones you claim want something to be handed to them) even say the racism is still there? Are we all lying?

I wish you could be black for a month. Black and poor and from the ghetto. I wish you could just live like that for a month and see what im talking about. That would be the only way for you to really understand what im trying to say. Like i said, the view from the other side of the fence must be different for white people than it is for black people. We view things differently. And once again, you will never know what its like to be black, cause you aren't black. Its like i can never understand the problems of rich kids cause im not rich. In instances like this, people can only think as far as thier circumstances. Its like i was watching this show on HBO called "Born Rich". It was a documentary about rich white kids and the problems they face. Now, in my mind, im thinking "What the hell are they crying about, The are already rich as hell. What worries should they have?" But im pretty sure to them, their problems were probably very valid, even though, i could never understand them. Now does it mean, their problems are non existant, and over exaggerated? No. But can i relate and understand it fully? No. Even if i had a rich friend, i couldnt understand it. I mean, i cant see why you would hide how rich you are to not seem to rich to your other rich friends? Stuff like that seems stupid to me. The point is, its not easy to see some things black people go through unless you walk the path they have walked.

"The slavery has left us to play catch up and we're just not there"? You've had a hundred and fifty years, and you're not caught up yet? You've had forty years since the Civil Rights movement, and you're still "just not there"?

You have a negative opinion of America--perhaps not overall, but on this certain subject--because you don't believe black people are given equal opportunities. You believe black people should be given opportunities, even though you fail to realize that this is already happening. And you believe that the opportunities black people (or any other minorities) get through AA come at the expense of white people. Affirmative Action is a program that takes things away from one race of people to give to another race of people, simply because they belong to those races. Now, you're telling me that those aren't racist beliefs?

"That analogy is BS. And since when has AA been about just handing out jobs to black people. Hell, no one just handed me a job. If thats the case, when am i gonna get handed my job."

AA has ALWAYS been about just handing jobs to minorities, what don't you understand about that? And if nobody's handed you a job because you're black yet, try finding a company that employs primarily white people and has only a small percentage of minorities, and they'd have to give you a job because they'd be afraid of getting sued if they don't. Because of, obviously, things like Affirmative Action.

There are all kinds of people who expect things given to them, but you would be hard pressed to find a white person that expects things to be given to him simply because he's white. Not so with black people.

"I mean, why would millions of black people all across the country exaggerate one point? I dont get it. If racism is not as bad as i say, why do even hard working black people (not the ones you claim want something to be handed to them) even say the racism is still there? Are we all lying?"

Why? Because they can, and they know people will pay attention. It's been shown time and time again, when somebody cries "racism", the entire country pays attention to them. How do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton made names for themselves? They pale in comparison to Rev. Martin Luther King.

And how many "hard working black people" say they're still being discriminated against? Look at Bill Cosby. He says the same kinds of things I'm saying, and the last time I saw him, he was black. A lot of black people love him because he tells the truth, and a lot of black people hate him because, well, he tells the truth, and some black people don't want to hear the truth. And he DID have to experience racism, because he's old enough to know what it's like.

As long as you, and any other black person, keep seperating yourself out from the rest of America, you'll never come to realize what's really going on. If you keep saying, "well I'm black, so I couldn't understand such-and-such, and you're such-and-such, so you'll never understand anything about being black," you will prove yourself correct because you never will understand anything else. As long as black people keep seperating themselves out of the rest of American culture, they have no reason to wonder why they are not a main part of American culture anymore. You're not being alienated, nobody is being racist against black people, black people are alienating the rest of society and pushing themselves further and further from reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

"The slavery has left us to play catch up and we're just not there"? You've had a hundred and fifty years, and you're not caught up yet? You've had forty years since the Civil Rights movement, and you're still "just not there"?

---

Although, i see you point, and yes, we have made alot of progress, no we are not fully there yet. I never said we arent getting there though.

[q=Sasquatch]
You have a negative opinion of America--perhaps not overall, but on this certain subject--because you don't believe black people are given equal opportunities. You believe black people should be given opportunities, even though you fail to realize that this is already happening. And you believe that the opportunities black people (or any other minorities) get through AA come at the expense of white people. Affirmative Action is a program that takes things away from one race of people to give to another race of people, simply because they belong to those races. Now, you're telling me that those aren't racist beliefs?
[/q]

Yes, i do have a negative opinion of america on this subject but, i dont believe we should be given anything. Its like, i just want things to be fair, and i think your definition of fair and mine are just different.



[q=Sasquatch]
There are all kinds of people who expect things given to them, but you would be hard pressed to find a white person that expects things to be given to him simply because he's white. Not so with black people.
[/q]

True enough.

[q=Sasquatch]
Why? Because they can, and they know people will pay attention. It's been shown time and time again, when somebody cries "racism", the entire country pays attention to them. How do you think Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton made names for themselves? They pale in comparison to Rev. Martin Luther King.
[/q]

Well, I dont think i quite know what to say on this one.


[q=Sasquatch]
And how many "hard working black people" say they're still being discriminated against? Look at Bill Cosby. He says the same kinds of things I'm saying, and the last time I saw him, he was black. A lot of black people love him because he tells the truth, and a lot of black people hate him because, well, he tells the truth, and some black people don't want to hear the truth. And he DID have to experience racism, because he's old enough to know what it's like.
[/q]

Yeah, But Bill Cosby would never say that Racism isnt still here. As for some blacks hating him, some blacks loving him, well thats just how it is sometimes. Believe it or not, not everyone believed in what MLK Jr. was saying when he was still alive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasquatch

As long as you, and any other black person, keep seperating yourself out from the rest of America, you'll never come to realize what's really going on. If you keep saying, "well I'm black, so I couldn't understand such-and-such, and you're such-and-such, so you'll never understand anything about being black," you will prove yourself correct because you never will understand anything else. As long as black people keep seperating themselves out of the rest of American culture, they have no reason to wonder why they are not a main part of American culture anymore. You're not being alienated, nobody is being racist against black people, black people are alienating the rest of society and pushing themselves further and further from reality.

---

You had me with you on this one, up until the the last sentence. There are still people who are racist towars black people, Just not everybody(which is what i always said). But, i do agree on the alienating part. Its like, before i started working at Amtrak, i never was really exposed to living/schooling/working with anyone but other black people. And when i did see white people( which was almost never), i guess there was a kind of fear/anxiety. Its like, your thinking that someone else is thinking something about you even though they are probably not giving a damn about you. Problem with living in all black communities is that you dont get a chance to be around anyone other than the people who look just like you. And i think thats a big problem for black people. Specially when we gotta come out and learn to work in a society dominated by white people.

"Its like, i just want things to be fair, and i think your definition of fair and mine are just different."

I want things to be fair too, most of America does, but my definition of "fair" is that everybody gets the same opportunities. The problem I have with programs like Affirmative Action is that they're not providing opportunities for anybody, they're forcing organizations and society to give things to people of certain races solely because they're of that certain race. I would have absolutely no problem with--in fact, I would welcome--an organization that double-checked applications, and made sure that the best qualified person got the job, scholarship, etc. no matter what color they were, and if they found that a person didn't get whatever it was that they were trying to get, and they were the best qualified candidate, dealt with it appropriately. But I maintain that quotas are not only not the solution, but part of the problem, and a step backwards. Quotas and "bonus points" only build resentment from white people, because it ends up where people wonder "was he really the best person to get that, or did he only get it because he was black"? And the legitimacy of qualified black people will have been tarnished by those unqualified black people that demand to be given things because they're black.

"Yeah, But Bill Cosby would never say that Racism isnt still here. As for some blacks hating him, some blacks loving him, well thats just how it is sometimes. Believe it or not, not everyone believed in what MLK Jr. was saying when he was still alive."

I haven't heard Bill Cosby claim that America is still racist, but I have heard him say that black people are only keeping themselves down. And most black people did believe in what Martin Luther King, Jr. was saying, and most of the black people that didn't agree with him didn't support equality, they supported an overthrow--for example, people like the Black Panthers, who believed that equality wasn't enough, and America had to redeem itself for its past transgressions against black people.

"You had me with you on this one, up until the the last sentence. There are still people who are racist towars black people, Just not everybody(which is what i always said). But, i do agree on the alienating part."

Forgive me, I misspoke when I said "nobody is racist against black people". We've both agreed that there are still racist white people, and I would expect that there always will be. But you understood the point I was trying to get across. Another example...In Atlanta, some black people were offended that a lot of the inner-city schools are almost all black, whereas a lot of the suburban schools are mostly white. Until it was looked into, and they found out that many black people switch schools so that they could be in that school with mostly black peers. It wasn't that the state government was setting school districts up so that blacks would all be in one school and whites in another, the districts were established and people moved into and out of each district. (By the way, educational funds are provided by the government based upon the numbers of students, not the location of the school or racial percentages.)

(EDIT: Wow, I think we actually agreed on quite a bit, there. ;) )