To chime in on the AA bit:

 

Yes, I understand that the point is to level the playing field for past years of discrimination. But my question is, how long do we have to pay for the sins of our fathers?

 

I never owned a slave. I never treated a black person differently because of their color. I never denied anyone anything based on the color of their skin.

 

I can understand the desire to even things out, but sooner or later, you have to smarten up and say "okay, everything's even now, no treating anyone differently, period."

 

On the gay foster parents: I'm against the banning. I see no reason why gay people shouldn't be allowed to take care of a child. Unless information somehow comes out that having gay parents causes a negative effect on a child (which I doubt) then they should be allowed to take care of kids too.

No white person ever lost out due to affirmative action, but a lot of minorities lost out when there wasn't AA.

 

I'll go as far as saying there's not so much a need for it now as there once was, but there definately was a time where laws had to be enacted to ensure minorites got a chance.

No white person ever lost out due to affirmative action, but a lot of minorities lost out when there wasn't AA.

I think an argument could be made, specifically when it comes to college admissions and scholarship opportunities. Didn't happen to me, as I went to Community Collge, but I think it is fairly obvious that there is a bias.

No, it's not hillarious it's discrimination. Why should the playing field be "leveled" at my expense? I never did, nor supported any type of discrimination, I live in one of the first, if not the first state in the union to abolish slavery, I live in a state that didn't have "colored" water fountains. I've done nothing to deserve being discriminated against and as such I oppose any attempts to do so.

You clearly are in denial over the racist history of our country.

 

However the Left's undying hatred for white men has gone way overboard and probably slowed the disapearance of racism from our country.

This is an absurd statement.

 

Left wingers are supposed to be "progressive", yet affirmative action is possibly the most reactive and regressive piece of legislation that they've ever managed to foist on the American people.

NO, the most regressive piece of regulation is the DEREGULATION of big business

 

I think the Left needs to realize that most white people don't share in their guilt over what their ancestors may or may not have done and as such don't feel that they should be punished for it. White people who still discriminate because of race are a tiny minority of the race as a whole in this country, yet the Left still wants to carry on as though we are still living in the 1960s.

Yep, we should just ignore racism and the fact that our OMG RACIST~! ancestors kept slavery up for 400+ years and that when that was taken away, the South embraced Jim Crow laws. But blacks should just forget that because we're smarter now, right? Yet, you would trust big corporations, as a whole, to do the right thing and hire based on qualifications when big business has proven that without govt. regulation, they NEVER do the right thing.

 

Every war that happens is compared to Vietnam,

Um.. we have only had two wars since Vietnam... the first War in the Gulf, which I lived through, and I don't recall anyone comparing it to Vietnam. In fact, Bush Sr. was masterful at putting together a REAL coalition of forces. Too bad his domestic policy sucked.

 

The 2nd one, and most recent, and the one you are old enough to live through and understand should be compared to Vietnam.. not in purpose.. but in possible results. In fact, every single war should be compaed to others to see what were the causes, the mistakes, the results, the pluses. To ignore history does not mean you are doomed to repeat it. It just means you are doomed to make it worse.

 

a war unjustifiably blamed on a Republican who ended it

Once again, not true. The criticism of Nixon has always been that he didn;t end it soon enough... and that he increased bombing at a time when he should have been withdrawing troops.

 

started by JFK

Not true. The first American troops were sent in by Eisenhower

 

the worst President this country has ever had

History has already shown that LBJ is NOT the worst President the country has ever had. For every far-right neocon such as yourself, there are people who support the Civil Rights Bills of '64 and '68. There are those who believe the original intent of Medicare and Medicaid are a good thing. There are those who recognize the GOOD of the Great Society.

 

Warren Harding was far worse. W is far worse. Hell, W may be the worst, non-despot leader in the last 250 years.

 

They still play the race sacrd as though racism is still a major issue in the country.

Do you mean race card? I think you do so I'll respond to that. Are there still lynchings every month in the South? Probably not. Are the black men still picking cotton while the masters watch over with whip? No.

 

Does a white woman still clutch her purse tight when a black man walks by? Probably. Do you still prefer not to visit certain parts of town because they are "unsafe" or does that really mean "full of niggers"? Most certainly. Have you already criticized the African-American culture because they don't conform to your standards of language and decorum? I think you already stated you hated ebonics previously in this folder.

 

Whether you want to admit it, and I don't think you do, because you are clearly in denial, racism does still exist and anytime you allow the govt. or business to disregard the rights of one group, it will continue to flourish.

 

They still have their strange split personality disorder when it comes to claiming to not trust the government yet wanting to use it as a means to run people's lifes and steal their money so they can try to recreate the failures of Cuba, China, and the USSR's socialist policies, only this time "it will be done right, we promise." The fact that the backwards system cannot be done right is apparently of no concern to the those who hate the "rich" symply because they are, yet worship Bill Clinton and Bono who are both incredibly wealthy. A system based on punishing the successful to prop up the unsuccessful is doomed to fail and can only be implemented by totalitarian rule. I generally can at least see where people are coming from no matter how nutty their beliefs but the Left baffles me a lot with some of the shit they come up with and the lies they perpectuate and try to pass off as fact. I;m sure I'll see a ton of examples of the Right doing shitty and stupid things, listed in defense of the Left, rather than an actual defense of the positions.

I don;t need to list all of the hypocritical things the right does (i.e. claiming that we should err on the side of life while supporting the death penalty; opposing abortion yet not wanting to support the system that is going to have to take care of these abandoned babes or ignoring the educational use of contraceptives; claiming we should be guided by our faith yet make decisions that Jesus would be ashamed of; the list goes on and on) but even if I defended every decision down to the last detail, and I have attempted to in several threads where your statements strike a nerve, it wouldn't matter. You would still believe in your Fox News reports and hinge on the President's every word. You would still label me two degrees left of Stalin and say my positions are bullshit.

 

I used to really like debating politics, until it became apparant that I was dealing in reality and the here and now and those on the other side were living in a fantasy world and refused to back up what they said with anything other than insults and catchphrases.

Yep, because the only thing I have done in my discussion with you is insult you and drop catch-phrases.

 

In college, a kid I knew started a conservative newsletter called the "Common Man" it was not very well written and he was an isolationist so I disagreed with him much of the time, but he was attempting to get another opinion out there. He would put the newsletter in front of the main Poly Sci room at school and invariably someone would pick up the stack and throw it away "in protest." He also put a few "ads" (as it were) on the Poly Sci bulletin board as well as a few Thamas Sowell essays that he printed off www.Jewishworldreview.com. They were taken down by a professor, who was just slightly to the left of Lenin on the the grounds that they were not stamped with the approval of the college, but not befoer they were vandalized with such witty sayings as "Haliburton" and "Naxi" and "racist." I would assume the person who wrote the latter didn't bother to even look at the essay because if they had they would clearly have seen that Thomas Sowell is black. These were vadalized and then removed, while all types of wacky left wing shit stayed up there until the paper turned yellow and was unmarked by anyone

Discourse is always good. Unfortunately, this claim that college is corrupting the minds full of liberal-propaganda is so full of shit, I think we could go rounds on another thread for that discussion. You know, because for every card-carrying Communist professor I had, I had the fascist neocon who taught me just as much. If you want to throw out examples of the left's attacks on the right, I could do the same. It means nothing.

 

The left likes to portray the right as boorish, stupid, bigoted, and close minded, yet some how the Right wingers at my college managed to avoid vandalism and censorship, while the "nuanced, intelligent, and open minded" Left wing just couldn't help themselves. It's a pretty typical response of those with the maturaity level of a four year old to tear down something they disagree with. An adult would have no trouble with opposing views being expressed and would have less trouble defending their own against them.

You throw this statement out there yet looking at your posts, you are not above the name-calling or stereotypes or close-mindedness that you supposedly despise.

 

In school it waa always 15 against one and I always ended up getting shouted down and having the language I used picked apart, rather than what I said. God forbid I ever refer to a black person as black, for the sake of saving a precious few syllables so that I could actually finish a sentance before being insulted. It was during that time that I came to the realization that the left as a general rule tends to be the most boorish and close minded people I've ever come across. 15 people couldn't pool their brains to come up with a single fact to disporve what I said so they shouted me down and called me names. Almost none of them bothered to listen to what I said, prefering to listen to how I said it. I tend to be very straight forward and that turns a lot of the hypersensative Left off. They would listen for me to use whatever the buss word of the day and collectively pounce on me for that. I think it was MLK who said that he had a dream that "one day all men would be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin." I agree and I havea dream when all men would be judged on the content of their speech, not the tone or verbiage they use to express it. I realized long ago that it will never happen.

Once again, sweeping generalizations backed up by an isolated incident that you "experienced". Every argument put forth against you, you haven't "listened" to what we said. You already have a view that has been challenged and we aren't going to sway your opinion. Hell, you certainly won't sway ours. You would be wise to also understand another Martin Luther King Jr. phrase as mentioned in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail.

 

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another mans freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro the wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

I had to take an "American Presidents" course, taught by a French Canadian who hated America, btw

LOL> Because all French-Candianans hate America. If you wanted to really be as open-minded and as studious you claimed to be, you would realize that the moment you mention the guy's background, your bias is exposed. It would have been just as easy to say I had a professor who taught "American Presidents" and I thought the man hated America by the way he taught the course." You didn't. You took the easy route. The route you despise so much when Lefty does it.

 

After all the JFK and FDR nonsense,

Agreed JFK is nonsense. You won;t change my mind on FDR so don't bother. Another clear example of somewhat so upset by civil debate going the cheap route.

 

a black girl claimed LBJ was the bets President because of AA

And to a black woman, it could be the single most important legislation to have affected her life since doors that were closed before were now open.

 

Stuff on Lincoln

You were right that Lincoln did not own slaves. You were right that Lincoln freed *some* of the slaves. As a proponent for or against slavery, Lincoln was crafty. Initially, he said that if keeping the Union together meant freeing the slaves, he would do it. If slavery was the only issue keeping the Union apart (it wasn't) then he would allow it to continue. In the beginning of his Presidency and the South's almost immediate secession, Lincoln's main goal was to keep the Union together, not to free the black man. It wasnt until later (the Gettysburg Address, 2nd Inaugural Address) that he publicly stated that slavery was the issue at the heart of the conflict.

 

She chose LBJ, and the was nary a mention of Vietnam

And she should indeed be raked over the coals for that. Once again, it really depends on her worldview. How did she grow up and under what conditions that her worldview would shape the beleif that LBJ was the best President in her eyes? I'm sure you never took that into account or ever really gave a shit.

 

I derected the entire speech at her as I disproved every single claim she had made 3 months prior.

I'd really have to read this or know what she actually said before I could even entertain the thought of agreeing or disagreeing with you. I would take you for your word, but it clearly has a right-slant.

 

Rather than open her mind to the truth she prefeed to live in her fantasy land where whites never did a postive thing ever in this country. That was the turning point for me, that was when I realized that there was no point to it, she was confronted with the truth, there was not a factual error or a single editorial statment in my speech, yet she chose to continue believing lies and no doubt told her friends about the "racist white guy" who dared question and then *GASP* disprove her bullshit.

I'll allow the thoughts of this thread to end on this note, also from the Letter from a Birmingham Jail...

 

We have waited for more that 340 years for our constitutional and Godgiven rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored" when your first name becomes "Nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when your are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

 

 

Feel free to disprove Martin Luther King Jr.s "Bullshit".

Yes, I understand that the point is to level the playing field for past years of discrimination. But my question is, how long do we have to pay for the sins of our fathers?

Agreed. The intent of affirmative action was never meant to be a permanent measure, but in this day and age, and less than a generation removed from the civil rights movement, and especially when you have legislation being introduced that threaten everyone's civil liberties, it is absolutely necessary in the here and now.

 

No white person ever lost out due to affirmative action, but a lot of minorities lost out when there wasn't AA.

I think an argument could be made, specifically when it comes to college admissions and scholarship opportunities. Didn't happen to me, as I went to Community Collge, but I think it is fairly obvious that there is a bias.

This was actually addressed in a Supreme Court case...

 

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke

I'd like to add that it amuses me when conservatives complain about college professors imposing their liberal views. In three years of college, I have yet to encounter a college professor outright forcing their views. Many of them have been liberal, but they respect opposing viewpoints. Frankly, a professor who does not listen to opposing arguments has no business in the academic world.

 

I learned that the world is not something that should be easily divided between "conservative" and "liberal." Those who argue 100% conservative and those who argue 100% liberal are equally wrong. The truth exists in the middle. To me, that is the hidden value of our political system. It comprises both sides more or less equally, and elections allow one side or the other to swing just enough to reflect the will of the people without imposing their viewpoints in a draconian method.

 

They were taken down by a professor, who was just slightly to the left of Lenin on the the grounds that they were not stamped with the approval of the college

It is a fairly common rule that postings need the approval of the college, or building supervisor. Did he attempt to acquire it? Otherwise, this professor's viewpoint has nothing to do with the matter.

 

Goodhelmet is right. In many of your arguments, you resort to what you accuse the other side of doing. You prejudge a person by his viewpoint, and then quote his action to prove yourself. To me, that presentation on who was the best president was disgraceful. You bashed the other side, rather than present your own argument in a positive way. There are good and bad sides to almost every President. LBJ did a great deal in support of civil rights, but he also escalated Vietnam. That is a problem of history, whether LBJ was good or bad is not easily resolved.

No, it's not hillarious it's discrimination. Why should the playing field be "leveled" at my expense? I never did, nor supported any type of discrimination, I live in one of the first, if not the first state in the union to abolish slavery, I live in a state that didn't have "colored" water fountains. I've done nothing to deserve being discriminated against and as such I oppose any attempts to do so.

You clearly are in denial over the racist history of our country.

 

I am in denial over nothing. Have I denied that racism existed in America? Have I denied that it still does? The answer to both questions is no. You, however seem to imply that white men are the only people capable of racism and the only who has ever been guilty of it and as such should be punished from now until enternity for the crimes.

 

However the Left's undying hatred for white men has gone way overboard and probably slowed the disapearance of racism from our country.

This is an absurd statement.

Your right, I should have said non-liberal, "rich" white men.

 

Left wingers are supposed to be "progressive", yet affirmative action is possibly the most reactive and regressive piece of legislation that they've ever managed to foist on the American people.

NO, the most regressive piece of regulation is the DEREGULATION of big business

Lets see, coming up with a way to increase wealth and improve the economy vs. goevernment mandated racism. I'll go with the former any day of the week.

 

I think the Left needs to realize that most white people don't share in their guilt over what their ancestors may or may not have done and as such don't feel that they should be punished for it. White people who still discriminate because of race are a tiny minority of the race as a whole in this country, yet the Left still wants to carry on as though we are still living in the 1960s.

Yep, we should just ignore racism and the fact that our OMG RACIST~! ancestors kept slavery up for 400+ years and that when that was taken away, the South embraced Jim Crow laws. But blacks should just forget that because we're smarter now, right? Yet, you would trust big corporations, as a whole, to do the right thing and hire based on qualifications when big business has proven that without govt. regulation, they NEVER do the right thing.

Where does this absurd number 400 come from? The slave trade began in 1619 and slavery was abolished in 1865. That is 246 years. If you want to really stretch it beyond the realm of realism we could use 1492 as a starting point, but that's still only 373 years. I mentioned getting catchphrases in response to my arguments and this was the type of shit I meant.

 

It's not a matter of trusting corporations, it's more a matter of the government having no business demanding that they hire certain people or not based on race. And once again my ancestors never owned slaves. Blacks should not forget about it but there does come a time when dwelling on the past becomes counterproductive. What was done was horrible, no question, but bemoaning that in lew of doing something to move forward is not going to help anybody. In this case the left is still living the 1860s, rather than the 1950s.

 

Every war that happens is compared to Vietnam,

Um.. we have only had two wars since Vietnam... the first War in the Gulf, which I lived through, and I don't recall anyone comparing it to Vietnam. In fact, Bush Sr. was masterful at putting together a REAL coalition of forces. Too bad his domestic policy sucked.

 

The 2nd one, and most recent, and the one you are old enough to live through and understand should be compared to Vietnam.. not in purpose.. but in possible results. In fact, every single war should be compaed to others to see what were the causes, the mistakes, the results, the pluses. To ignore history does not mean you are doomed to repeat it. It just means you are doomed to make it worse.

 

It's actually too bad that he trusted Ted Kennedy and raised taxes before being double crossed and the Dems refusing to cut spending. We're you singing the praises of the Gulf War when it happened? BTW, I was alive in 1990 and do remember the war, as I recall the Iraqi dictator's name was Sgt. Slaughter and he was soundly defeated by American President Hulk Hogan.

 

Lets see, we are winning this war and for the most part fighting it to win, except when teh President decided to cow tow and there is no draft this time around. The Vietnam was fought in the jungle with the Chinese and Russians threatening war with us if we fucked with them, despite the fact that they were aiding our emenies, this war is being fought in the desert, no other countries are threatening us directly because of it and as a side note at least one has agreed to disarm. But the similarities are startling.

 

a war unjustifiably blamed on a Republican who ended it

Once again, not true. The criticism of Nixon has always been that he didn;t end it soon enough... and that he increased bombing at a time when he should have been withdrawing troops.

Nixon, while a dtestable human being did something that his predecessors failed to, he tried to win, when he realized the writing was on the wall, he by virtue of circumstance became the first US President to "lose" a war.

 

started by JFK

Not true. The first American troops were sent in by Eisenhower

Sending troops does not mean starting a war. Clinton sent troops to Iraq, yet despite his proclamations to the contrary at the time he never started a war there.

 

the worst President this country has ever had

History has already shown that LBJ is NOT the worst President the country has ever had. For every far-right neocon such as yourself, there are people who support the Civil Rights Bills of '64 and '68. There are those who believe the original intent of Medicare and Medicaid are a good thing. There are those who recognize the GOOD of the Great Society.

 

Warren Harding was far worse. W is far worse. Hell, W may be the worst, non-despot leader in the last 250 years.

What did Warren Harding do that was so bad? Being ineffectual is not necessarrilly offensively bad. If that were the case then Jimmy Carter would be running neck and neck with LBJ on the list.

 

As far as "origial intent," why does that only count with with illfated liberal ideas and not the Constitution? I think the saying goes, "The raod to hell was paved with good intentions." And before you claim otherwise that is a cliche, not a catch phrase.

 

They still play the race [/b]card (typo fixed) as though racism is still a major issue in the country.

Do you mean race card? I think you do so I'll respond to that. Are there still lynchings every month in the South? Probably not. Are the black men still picking cotton while the masters watch over with whip? No.

True.

 

Does a white woman still clutch her purse tight when a black man walks by? Probably.

Do black people commit a disproportionate amount of robberies? Yes. Before you claim anything to the contrary that is the truth, not a racist statement and not meant to say "that all black people commit robbery (or any other crime)."

 

Do you still prefer not to visit certain parts of town because they are "unsafe" or does that really mean "full of niggers"? Most certainly.

No, that means the area is crime ridden. Are you implying that black neighborhoods=crime ridden neighborhoods? Would you want to walk through The Bowry in Mahatten, prior to Rudy cleaning the place up? That place was full of mostly white drug addicts and drunks, I would go out of my way to avoid it. Race has very little to do with it.

 

Have you already criticized the African-American culture because they don't conform to your standards of language and decorum? I think you already stated you hated ebonics previously in this folder.

My distain for Ebonics has nothing to do with the race of the people who use it, now is it becuase they don't conform to my standards of langauge and decorum. My hatred of it was described in the post and is because it is hurting black people's (and any others who choose to speak in that manner) chances at success. Those who choose to speak like that are hurting themselves. I get lectured about smoking all the time and that is considered to be a case of someone trying to help, but if I try to help someone I am wrongly acused of being racist or "criticizing African-American culture."

 

Whether you want to admit it, and I don't think you do, because you are clearly in denial, racism does still exist and anytime you allow the govt. or business to disregard the rights of one group, it will continue to flourish.

I never said racism doesn't exist. I said that it is by and large a dead issue in most places as far as whites discriminating against blacks. I'd be much more likely if I were to walk through a certain part of town that is (to use your words) "full of niggers" to be called a cracker or whatever than a black person walking through my neighborhood would be of being called a nigger. How do i know this you ask? Because I've seen black people walk through my neighborhood and never once have I heard a racial slur thrown their way and I have walked through minority neighborhoods and been called a cracker.

 

They still have their strange split personality disorder when it comes to claiming to not trust the government yet wanting to use it as a means to run people's lifes and steal their money so they can try to recreate the failures of Cuba, China, and the USSR's socialist policies, only this time "it will be done right, we promise." The fact that the backwards system cannot be done right is apparently of no concern to the those who hate the "rich" symply because they are, yet worship Bill Clinton and Bono who are both incredibly wealthy. A system based on punishing the successful to prop up the unsuccessful is doomed to fail and can only be implemented by totalitarian rule. I generally can at least see where people are coming from no matter how nutty their beliefs but the Left baffles me a lot with some of the shit they come up with and the lies they perpectuate and try to pass off as fact. I;m sure I'll see a ton of examples of the Right doing shitty and stupid things, listed in defense of the Left, rather than an actual defense of the positions.

I don;t need to list all of the hypocritical things the right does (i.e. claiming that we should err on the side of life while supporting the death penalty; opposing abortion yet not wanting to support the system that is going to have to take care of these abandoned babes or ignoring the educational use of contraceptives; claiming we should be guided by our faith yet make decisions that Jesus would be ashamed of; the list goes on and on) but even if I defended every decision down to the last detail, and I have attempted to in several threads where your statements strike a nerve, it wouldn't matter. You would still believe in your Fox News reports and hinge on the President's every word. You would still label me two degrees left of Stalin and say my positions are bullshit.

The argument for the death penalty is usually that the person who has committed murder has forfeited their right to live, it really has nothing to do with abortion, but to use your argument all those who support the legalization of abortion would be hypocrits as well, if they did not support the death penalty.

 

It's not so much not allowing schools to teach about the use of contraception, rather than the want to have the teachers mention that students do in fact have a sure fire way to avoid pregnacy and STDs and that is abstenence.

 

I hinge on nothing the President says, I voted for him because he was a better chocie than Gore and then Kerry. I have supported many of the things he's done and disagreed with plenty as well.

 

I never use Stalin, he was a murderous tyrany. Lenin killed far fewer people and did so in the name of "revolution." There is a difference. The proper term would be "Marxian." Woud you prefer that?

 

I used to really like debating politics, until it became apparant that I was dealing in reality and the here and now and those on the other side were living in a fantasy world and refused to back up what they said with anything other than insults and catchphrases.

Yep, because the only thing I have done in my discussion with you is insult you and drop catch-phrases.

No, you are for the most part the exception to the rule.

 

In college, a kid I knew started a conservative newsletter called the "Common Man" it was not very well written and he was an isolationist so I disagreed with him much of the time, but he was attempting to get another opinion out there. He would put the newsletter in front of the main Poly Sci room at school and invariably someone would pick up the stack and throw it away "in protest." He also put a few "ads" (as it were) on the Poly Sci bulletin board as well as a few Thamas Sowell essays that he printed off www.Jewishworldreview.com. They were taken down by a professor, who was just slightly to the left of Lenin on the the grounds that they were not stamped with the approval of the college, but not befoer they were vandalized with such witty sayings as "Haliburton" and "Naxi" and "racist." I would assume the person who wrote the latter didn't bother to even look at the essay because if they had they would clearly have seen that Thomas Sowell is black. These were vadalized and then removed, while all types of wacky left wing shit stayed up there until the paper turned yellow and was unmarked by anyone

Discourse is always good. Unfortunately, this claim that college is corrupting the minds full of liberal-propaganda is so full of shit, I think we could go rounds on another thread for that discussion. You know, because for every card-carrying Communist professor I had, I had the fascist neocon who taught me just as much. If you want to throw out examples of the left's attacks on the right, I could do the same. It means nothing.

I did not claim that college is corrupting the minds of kids. I don't think I had a single conservative professor in either of the two colleges I went to. If I did they certainly didn't wear their beliefs on their sleeve in the same way many of the leftist ones did. I had one Poly Sci proffesor who's politial ideology I could not figure out and not so coincidently he was the best Prof in the department. He taught both sides and when the mood struck him he would goof on both sides. The other 4 full time profs ranged from liberal democrat, to socialist, to communist. Those are their decriptions of themselves, not mine. I, unlike seemingly many other people do have the abilty to identify bias from both sides. Have you ever seen me write anything about Fox News not having a conservative tilt? No, you haven't. On the otherhand you swear up and down that the other networks are not only not liberal but are conservative because they are owned by these evil corporations who discrimnate against minorities. Although it seems to me that every conceivable race or nationality are reprented in the new rooms around the country, the only problem is that they all think the same. Diversity of race for the sake of diversity is superficial bullshit.

 

The left likes to portray the right as boorish, stupid, bigoted, and close minded, yet some how the Right wingers at my college managed to avoid vandalism and censorship, while the "nuanced, intelligent, and open minded" Left wing just couldn't help themselves. It's a pretty typical response of those with the maturity level of a four year old to tear down something they disagree with. An adult would have no trouble with opposing views being expressed and would have less trouble defending their own against them.

You throw this statement out there yet looking at your posts, you are not above the name-calling or stereotypes or close-mindedness that you supposedly despise.

I never said I wasn't close-minded on certain issues. Those on the Left who claim as much, yet clearly are not are the hypocrits, same for those on the Right. I also wrote "tend to be," I didn't make a blanket statement claiming that all of them are.

 

In school it waa always 15 against one and I always ended up getting shouted down and having the language I used picked apart, rather than what I said. God forbid I ever refer to a black person as black, for the sake of saving a precious few syllables so that I could actually finish a sentance before being insulted. It was during that time that I came to the realization that the left as a general rule tends to be the most boorish and close minded people I've ever come across. 15 people couldn't pool their brains to come up with a single fact to disporve what I said so they shouted me down and called me names. Almost none of them bothered to listen to what I said, prefering to listen to how I said it. I tend to be very straight forward and that turns a lot of the hypersensative Left off. They would listen for me to use whatever the buss word of the day and collectively pounce on me for that. I think it was MLK who said that he had a dream that "one day all men would be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin." I agree and I have a dream when all men would be judged on the content of their speech, not the tone or verbiage they use to express it. I realized long ago that it will never happen.

Once again, sweeping generalizations backed up by an isolated incident that you "experienced". Every argument put forth against you, you haven't "listened" to what we said. You already have a view that has been challenged and we aren't going to sway your opinion. Hell, you certainly won't sway ours. You would be wise to also understand another Martin Luther King Jr. phrase as mentioned in his Letter From A Birmingham Jail.

 

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another mans freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro the wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

OK, and the point of that is?

 

I had to take an "American Presidents" course, taught by a French Canadian who hated America, btw

LOL> Because all French-Candianans hate America. If you wanted to really be as open-minded and as studious you claimed to be, you would realize that the moment you mention the guy's background, your bias is exposed. It would have been just as easy to say I had a professor who taught "American Presidents" and I thought the man hated America by the way he taught the course." You didn't. You took the easy route. The route you despise so much when Lefty does it.

No, this particular French Canadian hated America. Read what I wrote, don't read into what I wrote. I was noting the absurdty of having a prof teaching a class about the history of a country he hates. If I had a story to tell about the "Vietnam War Legacy" class I took, I would mention that the guy who taught was a self-described Communist who was actively routing for the other side. He made no bones about it and taught the class as though everything he said, while incredibly biased was fact.

 

After all the JFK and FDR nonsense,

Agreed JFK is nonsense. You won;t change my mind on FDR so don't bother. Another clear example of somewhat so upset by civil debate going the cheap route.

Well, at least we agree on something. Where did I go the cheap route? I gave a background as to what was being said, I'll admit that I should have mentioned that one kid mentioned Ike, another mentioned Reagan (the Prof shot those down right away), and another said Clinton, that was met with mostly dumbstruck silence and a few snickers (I'm sure a little from me).

 

a black girl claimed LBJ was the best President because of AA

And to a black woman, it could be the single most important legislation to have affected her life since doors that were closed before were now open.

Could be, but to disregard any other thing someone did because they had one positive is stupid. It would be liking defending a child molesting priest because he helped a few people get into Heavan by hearing their confessional. Just because someone has done good, doesn't mean that that good outweighs the bad. And in LBJ's case, I'd say that knowing lying to the American public, conscripting thousands of American boys and forcing them to fight a war that he didn't have the will to win sort of outweighs the Civil Rights acts that he signed into law. And certainly the clsuterfuck that is the expanded welfare state.

 

Stuff on Lincoln

You were right that Lincoln did not own slaves. You were right that Lincoln freed *some* of the slaves. As a proponent for or against slavery, Lincoln was crafty. Initially, he said that if keeping the Union together meant freeing the slaves, he would do it. If slavery was the only issue keeping the Union apart (it wasn't) then he would allow it to continue. In the beginning of his Presidency and the South's almost immediate secession, Lincoln's main goal was to keep the Union together, not to free the black man. It wasnt until later (the Gettysburg Address, 2nd Inaugural Address) that he publicly stated that slavery was the issue at the heart of the conflict.

While that is true he was also a member of the Republican Party who were the abolitionists of the time. After he finished saying that his main goal was to unify the country he also mentioned his "oft expressed wish that all men, everywhere were free." Lincoln was a politician, I'll readilly admit that and he was not a civil rights activist by toadys standards, but for the time he was and emancipating the slaves sort of proves that.

 

She chose LBJ, and the was nary a mention of Vietnam

And she should indeed be raked over the coals for that. Once again, it really depends on her worldview. How did she grow up and under what conditions that her worldview would shape the beleif that LBJ was the best President in her eyes? I'm sure you never took that into account or ever really gave a shit.

She didn't have a world view, or atleast never articulated one beyond "LBJ was a great President because...."

 

I directed the entire speech at her as I disproved every single claim she had made 3 months prior.

I'd really have to read this or know what she actually said before I could even entertain the thought of agreeing or disagreeing with you. I would take you for your word, but it clearly has a right-slant.

She, as was already stated claimed that Lincoln was a slave owner (not true, both of us agree on that), that he never really freed the slaves (false), and that he was a proponent of slavery (false). That is not an exact quote, but it is and acurate paraphrasing of what she said. Where is the right slant? If you told me that you had a prof who said "death to Jews" or something, I would believe you despite you having a left-slant.

 

Rather than open her mind to the truth she prefeed to live in her fantasy land where whites never did a postive thing ever in this country. That was the turning point for me, that was when I realized that there was no point to it, she was confronted with the truth, there was not a factual error or a single editorial statment in my speech, yet she chose to continue believing lies and no doubt told her friends about the "racist white guy" who dared question and then *GASP* disprove her bullshit.

I'll allow the thoughts of this thread to end on this note, also from the Letter from a Birmingham Jail...

 

We have waited for more that 340 years for our constitutional and Godgiven rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse-and-buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate-filled policemen curse, kick, and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society; when you suddenly find your tongue twisted and your speech stammering as you seek to explain to your six-year-old daughter why she can't go to the public amusement park that has just been advertised on television, and see tears welling up in her eyes when she is told that Funtown is closed to colored children, and see ominous clouds of inferiority beginning to form in her little mental sky, and see her beginning to distort her personality by developing an unconscious bitterness toward white people; when you have to concoct an answer for a five-year-old son who is asking, "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"; when you take a cross-country drive and find it necessary to sleep night after night in the uncomfortable corners of your automobile because no motel will accept you; when you are humiliated day in and day out by nagging signs reading "white" and "colored" when your first name becomes "Nigger," your middle name becomes "boy" (however old you are) and your last name becomes "John," and your wife and mother are never given the respected title "Mrs."; when your are harried by day and haunted by night by the fact that you are a Negro, living constantly at tiptoe stance, never quite knowing what to expect next, and are plagued with inner fears and outer resentments; when you are forever fighting a degenerating sense of "nobodiness" then you will understand why we find it difficult to wait. There comes a time when the cup of endurance runs over, and men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.

 

 

Feel free to disprove Martin Luther King Jr.s "Bullshit".

Did I ever say that he was full of shit?

 

I wrote about "her bullshit" here:

 

, yet she chose to continue believing lies and no doubt told her friends about the "racist white guy" who dared question and then *GASP* disprove her bullshit.

And this was the only mention of MLK in my post and there was nothing negative said about him:

 

I think it was MLK who said that he had a dream that "one day all men would be judged on the content of his character and not the color of his skin." I agree and I havea dream when all men would be judged on the content of their speech, not the tone or verbiage they use to express it. I realized long ago that it will never happen.

Furthermore, I have never said anything postive about segregation or slavery and nothing negative about black people as a whole. I did mention a single black girl and the "language" that many of them use. However mentioning one girl, who's race I only identified so that one might be able to see where she was coming from, regradless of her being incorrect about Lincoln and in denial about LBJ leading thousands of American men to the slaughter. As, i have now stated twice my problem with "Ebonics" is that it is detrimental to success. One has to beable to speak proper English (with very few exceptions) to succeed in this country. It is not law, it is a fact of life. If I were unable to speak English without countless intentional and unintentional grammical errors I would never have been able to intern for a Senator and I wouldn't beable to the Oh so thrilling temp job I;m currently dragging my ass through. And if I were unable to speak or write English I never should have been graduated from high school, much less two colleges. Yet, because of political correctness these unfortunate kids are thrust out into the world unprepared and many of them fail. Rather than blaming themselves or the teachers who failed to teach them they tend to blame someone else, usually whitey, who last I checked never forced anyone to speak like a moron. I have no problem with people speaking with their friends anyway they want. I curse too much in private and don't always use proper English, but the difference is that I realize that there is an acceptable place for that and an unacceptable place. Work is an unacceptable place and the saddest part is that many of theses kids, black and white alike don't know how to speak.

 

The temp job I mentioned consists of calling countless college students and pre-interviewing them for a job they applied for. Keep, in mind that I clearly identify myself, where I'm calling from, and why I am calling (many of them seem to not remember applying despite it being no more than 2 days prior to my call). I was really shocked to hear how poorly these kids spoke (regardless of race) on a job interview. That and I;m thinking of moving to the South, the people tend to be much more polite down there. I've had to ask several people not to call me "sir." I'm 23, not 53, give the "sir" shit a break.

I'd like to add that it amuses me when conservatives complain about college professors imposing their liberal views.  In three years of college, I have yet to encounter a college professor outright forcing their views.  Many of them have been liberal, but they respect opposing viewpoints.

What do you study? I studied Poly Sci, so I can forgive some of it in that case. But I also have an AD in Criminal Justice and there is no excuse for it there, beyond trying to foist your views on kids who, for the most part are afraid to defend their own or have yet to develop them.

 

Frankly, a professor who does not listen to opposing arguments has no business in the academic world.

Nor do the ones who try to "correct" opposing views based soley on ideology with no regard for the truth. Some classes turned into 50 to 1 hr and 15 min long debates between my Profs and I.

 

I learned that the world is not something that should be easily divided between "conservative" and "liberal."  Those who argue 100% conservative and those who argue 100% liberal are equally wrong.  The truth exists in the middle.  To me, that is the hidden value of our political system.  It comprises both sides more or less equally, and elections allow one side or the other to swing just enough to reflect the will of the people without imposing their viewpoints in a draconian method.

I agree with the first two sentances. However, the middle is were a lot of things get done, but not much gets accomplished.

 

They were taken down by a professor, who was just slightly to the left of Lenin on the the grounds that they were not stamped with the approval of the college

It is a fairly common rule that postings need the approval of the college, or building supervisor. Did he attempt to acquire it? Otherwise, this professor's viewpoint has nothing to do with the matter.

I understand that, but you conveniently ignored the part where I mentioned that the Profs had no trouble leaving the left wing propaganda on the board or even posting it themselves without the cute little red stamp on it.

 

Goodhelmet is right.  In many of your arguments, you resort to what you accuse the other side of doing.  You prejudge a person by his viewpoint, and then quote his action to prove yourself.

Point to one example of me quoting someone out of context. I generally quote entire paragraphs to avoid doing so and if not I respond to one point before moving onto the next.

 

To me, that presentation on who was the best president was disgraceful.  You bashed the other side, rather than present your own argument in a positive way.

I bashed no one in my speech. I spoke only of Lincoln and directed the speech at her in an attempt to let her here the truth about a guy who she clearly never studied. I bashed LBJ on the first day of class, in the sense that telling the truth about someone is "bashing them". Read my posts more carefully before you resond.

 

There are good and bad sides to almost every President.  LBJ did a great deal in support of civil rights, but he also escalated Vietnam.

Obviously there are both good and bad sides to everyone. OK, let's look at LBJ a little more closely.

 

He only became President because JFK was shot and JFK had to steal the elction through massive voter fraud in Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey.

 

He was a liar, no one can dispute that.

 

He was an adulterer.

 

He led thousands of American men to their deaths for a war that he never intended to win despite his statements to the contrary.

 

He was a bully who treated his staff like shit and cursed them out frequently.

 

He expanded the welfare state, thus ensuring that the poor stay right where they are adn never succeed.

 

He replaced one form of Governmental discrimination with another.

 

But, he did sign a couple of Civil Rights bills (that were supported more by his opposing party than his own).

 

That is a problem of history, whether LBJ was good or bad is not easily resolved.

Uhm.... Yes it is. I just did it. Take out the partisan parts, about AA and welfare and he still loses the "good vs. bad" debate.

I will touch on all of your points, sure enough, but I wanted to touch on one in particular right now...

 

 

Lette rform a Birmingham Jail and your response...

 

 

OK, and the point of that is?

The entire argument you have made is what King deems is the problem...

 

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

Everything... from the being called cracker in the bad neighborhoods... to the ebonics... to the idea that we should all be equal but not at the white man's expense is clearly a sign that you have a shallow understanding of the issue.

 

There is clearly a reason that things like affirmatie action exist... it is so that govt. agencies and school boards and big business do NOT discirminate against minorities. It is a program that has allowed African-Americans rise from the gutter and be put into positions that were previously locked shut before. That is a FACT. It is also a FACT that people our current President has put in positions of power (Powell, Rice) were able to obtain rank through Affirmative Action.

 

I have never called you racist but you clearly have no understanding of what race relations are really like in this country. Maybe you do.. Boston had its own race issues in the 1970s. You told me about living in Massachusetts. Well, let me tell you about living in Texas. Texas, partially because of its size, has one of the most racially diverse populations in the Union. It also has one of the most racially segregated populations. You could practically color Houston with four differnet shades and none would overlap. Affirmative action was never meant to be a

be all-end all program. It was implemented BECAUSE of our racist history and to insure that if someone is denied hiring, it would be because they were less qualified. Very rarely, has affirmative action caused a MORE qulified person to lose the job because of their race. The reverse cannot be true. Prior to affirmative action, if you weren't white, you weren't getting the job.

 

this all goes back to what King was saying.. there is a method and a reason that these programs need to be in place. They are there so that we may one day reach the point that we are based on our merit, not the color of our skin. If you think that point has already come to pass, you are clearly in denial.

I will touch on all of your points, sure enough, but I wanted to touch on one in particular right now...

 

 

Lette rform a Birmingham Jail and your response...

 

 

OK, and the point of that is?

The entire argument you have made is what King deems is the problem...

 

Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating that absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

 

Everything... from the being called cracker in the bad neighborhoods... to the ebonics... to the idea that we should all be equal but not at the white man's expense is clearly a sign that you have a shallow understanding of the issue.

How can one be equal at the other's expense without pissing off the side who is expending? The way I look at it is that the only things whites should have had to/should have to give up is discrimination. I am all for competition, but to give something to someone based soley on race is wrong.

 

There is clearly a reason that things like affirmatie action exist... it is so that govt. agencies and school boards and big business do NOT discirminate against minorities.

No, it ensures that government, agencies, school boards, and big business continues to discriminate, although this time in favor of minorities.

 

It is a program that has allowed African-Americans rise from the gutter and be put into positions that were previously locked shut before. That is a FACT. It is also a FACT that people our current President has put in positions of power (Powell, Rice) were able to obtain rank through Affirmative Action.

I won't argue that there has been no good to come from it. Some good has come of just about anything, but it doesn't make it right. I'm pretty sure that you are happy that Sadam is no longer in power, but that you oppose the war. There's an example, you oppose the war, but I think would admit that at least one good thing came of it. I oppose discrimination of all kinds.

 

I have never called you racist but you clearly have no understanding of what race relations are really like in this country. Maybe you do.. Boston had its own race issues in the 1970s.

Very true, I never claimed that Boston was perfect, it's still not.

 

 

You told me about living in Massachusetts. Well, let me tell you about living in Texas. Texas, partially because of its size, has one of the most racially diverse populations in the Union. It also has one of the most racially segregated populations. You could practically color Houston with four differnet shades and none would overlap.

OK, what does that say about each of those four groups of people? The same thing. Unless you are implying that the white man refuses minorities the ability toi live with one another, then I don't see the problem. People live where they live. The only thing I ask of society is that every body is treated with respect and that no one is denied a job that he is qualified for based on race. I don't need shiny happy people holding hands, just a mutual respect. I think my goal is much more reasonable, yet still an impossibility. Every cafeteria I've ever gone into has segregated itself by some means, whether it be cheerleaders all at one table or blacks or whites or whatever. It's human nature. Is is a good thing? No. Is it a bad thing? Not necesarilly. It is what it is.

 

BTW, what is the 4th ethnicity? I assume Black, White, and Mexican/Hispanic are 3 of them.

 

Affirmative action was never meant to be a be all-end all program. It was implemented BECAUSE of our racist history and to insure that if someone is denied hiring, it would be because they were less qualified. Very rarely, has affirmative action caused a MORE qulified person to lose the job because of their race. The reverse cannot be true. Prior to affirmative action, if you weren't white, you weren't getting the job.

I know why it was implemented and I even understand the rationale and may have even supported it briefly at the time.

 

How do you know that a more qualified person loses out because of their race, only very rarely? How would one go about quantifying that?

 

this all goes back to what King was saying.. there is a method and a reason that these programs need to be in place. They are there so that we may one day reach the point that we are based on our merit, not the color of our skin. If you think that point has already come to pass, you are clearly in denial.

I would contend that their existance is an impediment to that goal. When you look at AA it's really a typical socialist type program, it attempts to rob from the rich to give to the poor and ineveitably when you take something from someone they don't like it.

 

The funny thing about this whole debate is that we both agree about the goal being the end of racial discrimination and it is the methodolgy that we disagree on.

Right, I side with Dr. King. You are the moderate he speaks of.

 

The 4th group is Asian.

 

It's human nature.

NO, It is not human nature!!!! This is 100% WRONG. Racism is socially contructed, NOT part of nature.

 

Anyway, I will get to all of your points, line by line but I am actually in the middle of burning the 2nd disc of the Ricky Steamboat shoot for you. If yo uwant me to stop, I can gladly continue the debate

I am in denial over nothing. Have I denied that racism existed in America? Have I denied that it still does? The answer to both questions is no.

 

Your statements, such as one I am about to get to seem to indicate otherwise.

 

You, however seem to imply that white men are the only people capable of racism and the only who has ever been guilty of it and as such should be punished from now until enternity for the crimes.

OK, by virtue of the definition, whites, the race you and I belong to, have been the instigators for racism in this country. This is our history. The problem with your argument is that you feel, as a white man, you are being punished for being white. This is 100% false. You are not being punished. You have a clear advantage, and one that other groups (OMG Minorities) have not had the privilege of for the majority of our country's history. This is the reason we have laws that protect the interests of minorities. If we don't have them, we revert to the past. Maybe you are ok with that, no skin off your back, you never had ancestors that owned slaves. Fuck that.

 

Your right, I should have said non-liberal, "rich" white men.

Yep, once you said that, you made the statement even more absurd.

 

Lets see, coming up with a way to increase wealth and improve the economy vs. goevernment mandated racism. I'll go with the former any day of the week.

You missed out on the "wealth for already-wealthy rich white men". Also, W. has had plenty of time to improve the economy... the entire nation... except for the already-wealthy are still waiting.

 

As for govt. mandated racism, when you have the history and background of African-Americans, I'll cry you a river. In the meantime, I'll laugh at these insane statements.

 

Where does this absurd number 400 come from? The slave trade began in 1619 and slavery was abolished in 1865. That is 246 years. If you want to really stretch it beyond the realm of realism we could use 1492 as a starting point, but that's still only 373 years. I mentioned getting catchphrases in response to my arguments and this was the type of shit I meant.

The slave trade began in earnest, by the Portugese in the 1440s. So instead of OUR ancestors, I should have addressed the ancestors of those with African heritage. But we're not Portugese, so no sweat off our backs.

 

It's not a matter of trusting corporations, 

Absolutely, it is a matter of the businesses being trustworthy, or having a lack of moral ethics.

 

it's more a matter of the government having no business demanding that they hire certain people or not based on race.

This is the same line of thinking as " the govt. having no business demanding that a business serve someone solely based on race" or " having the right to decide if a landlord wants to rent to a black person". It is the entire purppose of the fucking civil rights movement... to ensure that minorities rights are protected so they don't have to put up with this bullshit. Bull shit that would be even more apparent if affirmative action did not exist.

 

Blacks should not forget about it but there does come a time when dwelling on the past becomes counterproductive. What was done was horrible, no question, but bemoaning that in lew of doing something to move forward is not going to help anybody.

It isn't dwelling on the past. It is learning frm the past and preventing the occurrences of the past from happening again.

 

What was done was horrible, no question, but bemoaning that in lew of doing something to move forward is not going to help anybody. In this case the left is still living the 1860s, rather than the 1950s.

Another example of denial. The laws enacted are to help minorites move forward. Brown v. Board, CRA of 64 and 68, The Little Rock Nine, James Meredith, March on Washington... these are all things during the Civil Rights to help move forward. You must have the misconception that blacks had it good before LBJ and his horrible policy set them back 100 years. After the slavery came the Jim crow. After Jim Crow, we have progression. That progression is not complete and won't be until the neocons stop fucking with Civil Rights legislation. Please, show me the source of your insane views that the progressive laws of the 1960s were a detriment to African-Americans.

 

It's actually too bad that he trusted Ted Kennedy and raised taxes before being double crossed and the Dems refusing to cut spending.

Deflection of blame... another neocon habit.

 

We're you singing the praises of the Gulf War when it happened?

At the time, I was in high school. Good thing too because it was during this time that my girlfriend's dad was shipped out and I was able to lose my virginity in her bedroom. As for the war itself, I was in high school and had no reason to doubt it was a good cause.

 

Lets see, we are winning this war and for the most part fighting it to win, except when teh President decided to cow tow and there is no draft this time around.

Well, we did squash a country that posed no threat. Of course, we were going to win the war. Right now, we are no longer at war. We are simply occupying a conquered country. Also, are you implying that we should have had a draft for this occupation?

 

The Vietnam was fought in the jungle with the Chinese and Russians threatening war with us if we fucked with them, despite the fact that they were aiding our emenies, this war is being fought in the desert, no other countries are threatening us directly because of it and as a side note at least one has agreed to disarm. But the similarities are startling.

That's true. We are winnning the hearts and minds of the entire region... not encouraging the next generation of terrorists. And your grasp of geography is amazingly good.

 

Too bad you forgot the big picture in this myopic description. Until a country is allowed to forge their own identity through their own course, they are not a democracy. They are an occupied country that is abiding by the wishes of the conqueror. What we ahve here is an imperialist takeover. If you are not familiar with imperialism it is when a stronger nation (the U.S.) controls a weaker nation (Iraq) through political (forced democracy), economic (oil... who's going to get all that oil?), and military means (duh). This is where the comparison to Vietnam becomes valid. The Southern and Northern parts of Vietnam were clearly at odds. The U.S. decided to take over where France left off and force its version of democracy on the country (see a comparison) and their guy (Diem) was allowed to run roughshod over the South. In Iraq, there are religious factions who are clearly at odds (Kurds, Sunnis, Shiites). Then the U.S. decides to force its version of democracy on the country.

 

The war in Vietnam should have been a rousing success. One problem, we misjudged the intent of the Vietnamese people. We only saw it as a war between communism and Democracy... not as a Civil War that had to be decided by the country themselves. The War in Iraq should be a rousing success, yet we only claim it is a War on Terrorism and look at Iraq as a country that is homogenous. We clearly forget that there are diverse political and religious factors that will make this difficult in a part of the world that rejects Western thought.

 

The similarities are there... but the differences are amazing.

 

Nixon, while a dtestable human being did something that his predecessors failed to, he tried to win, when he realized the writing was on the wall, he by virtue of circumstance became the first US President to "lose" a war.

yep, Nixon did the same thing LBJ did, he misunderstood the enemy. he also increased escalation AND usually shares the blame in losing the "war" with LBJ. Nixon did nothing that LBJ didn't do.

 

Sending troops does not mean starting a war. Clinton sent troops to Iraq, yet despite his proclamations to the contrary at the time he never started a war there.

Agreed, but by this definition, JFK still did not start the war. Hell, they were considered advisors up until the time LBJ escalated the war in 1965. The fact remains that IKE was the one who placed our troops in a place we didn't belong and tried to implement our form of democracy by placing Diem in power.

 

If you want to really argue semantics, even LBJ never fought the war since war was never officially declared because of that crafty piece of paper, The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

 

What did Warren Harding do that was so bad? Being ineffectual is not necessarrilly offensively bad. If that were the case then Jimmy Carter would be running neck and neck with LBJ on the list.

You really need to read up on a bio of Harding. I agree that Jimmy Carter was ineffective. I also undersand WHY he was ineffective. You probably have no clue why Carter failed in his tasks.

 

As far as "origial intent," why does that only count with with illfated liberal ideas and not the Constitution? I think the saying goes, "The raod to hell was paved with good intentions."

Well, if we want to get to the "original intent" of the Constitution, then we shouldn't have this debate. Equality and protection of minorities was never an original intent of Madison or any other supporter of the Constitution.

 

Do black people commit a disproportionate amount of robberies? Yes. Before you claim anything to the contrary that is the truth, not a racist statement and not meant to say "that all black people commit robbery (or any other crime)."

 

Are there more convicted white rapists and convicted pedophiles? My god man, show me the stats on blacks committing more robberies than whites. No, it is a state of fear from the black man, and the underlying racial tensions that exist in this entire nation that perperuate that fear. It has nothing to do with statistics.

 

No, that means the area is crime ridden. Are you implying that black neighborhoods=crime ridden neighborhoods? Would you want to walk through The Bowry in Mahatten, prior to Rudy cleaning the place up? That place was full of mostly white drug addicts and drunks, I would go out of my way to avoid it. Race has very little to do with it.

Did you mean Manhattan? I am not familiar with the Bowry so I have no idea if that is where you are talking about. And as I will soon explain, race has very much to do with it... as well as socioeconomic status.

 

 

My distain for Ebonics has nothing to do with the race of the people who use it, now is it becuase they don't conform to my standards of langauge and decorum. My hatred of it was described in the post and is because it is hurting black people's (and any others who choose to speak in that manner) chances at success. Those who choose to speak like that are hurting themselves. I get lectured about smoking all the time and that is considered to be a case of someone trying to help, but if I try to help someone I am wrongly acused of being racist or "criticizing African-American culture."

You didn't articulate that in your people that piss you off post. In fact, that post was pretty damn hostile.

 

I never said racism doesn't exist. I said that it is by and large a dead issue in most places as far as whites discriminating against blacks.

This is an insane statement. Racism is alive and kicking in the United States. It is by no means a dead issue. If whites choose to turn their heads, like you appear to be doing, then they are ignorant to why legislation is a msut to protect people's rights. Also, racism id not always overt... many time sit is concealed, such as the examples I gave you because of preconceived notions and stereotypes that are perpetuated and reenforced.

 

I'd be much more likely if I were to walk through a certain part of town that is (to use your words) "full of niggers" to be called a cracker or whatever than a black person walking through my neighborhood would be of being called a nigger. How do i know this you ask? Because I've seen black people walk through my neighborhood and never once have I heard a racial slur thrown their way and I have walked through minority neighborhoods and been called a cracker.

Well, I am glad you used such a wide sample for your survey.

 

Once again, why do you think a black person would be more hostile towards a white person? Could it be because of the racism that they experience every single day of their fucking lives? Could it be the resentment that people claim that we all have the same opportunities when the division in our country clealry indicates we don't?

 

The argument for the death penalty is usually that the person who has committed murder has forfeited their right to live, it really has nothing to do with abortion, but to use your argument all those who support the legalization of abortion would be hypocrits as well, if they did not support the death penalty.

Read my post again. I used the semi-colon to separate the two topics. I was addressing abortion with the lack of funds for social services that would take care of the unwanted children. The fallout from the end of abortion would be a nice heaping helping of orphans and children of the state. Who is going to pay for these? Who, right now, is trying to ban gays from adoption and being foster parents even though it would put more strain on an already underfunded and over-fractured system?

 

It's not so much not allowing schools to teach about the use of contraception, rather than the want to have the teachers mention that students do in fact have a sure fire way to avoid pregnacy and STDs and that is abstenence.

 

You want people to abstain but I am sure the statistics are in my favor when I say most people aren't waiting. That is the reality. No fairy-tale bullshit here. The argument isn;t that abstenance should not be taught. The argument is that kids need to know about contraceptives and birth-control so that unwanted pregnancies don't occur. It is the far-right and the religious neocons who keep blocking the ability of schools to confront the issue and fix or alleviate the problem.

 

I hinge on nothing the President says, I voted for him because he was a better chocie than Gore and then Kerry. I have supported many of the things he's done and disagreed with plenty as well.

Well, so far, you are falling in line with everything he has said. Please, give me faith in the human condition and tell me how you oppose any of his policies.

 

I never use Stalin, he was a murderous tyrany. Lenin killed far fewer people and did so in the name of "revolution." There is a difference. The proper term would be "Marxian." Woud you prefer that?

You could use Marx, Stalin, Lenin, Guevara, Castro, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, or any other Communist. It does nothing to enhance your argument.

 

No, you are for the most part the exception to the rule.

I I am not the exception. I know better to use slogans and just call you names. It does nothing to further my argument. The other people in this thread haven't done anything of the sort. This isn't TSM where every single Current Events topic degenerates into name-calling and bullshit drama. Maybe it isn't the Left that is the problem but the company you keep. I'm good company, I promise.

 

College stuff

This is interesting. You use your experiences to shape your worldview i.e. having too many leftist professors, getting called a cracker, etc.

 

Did you ever think that the reason that hostitlity from African-Americans happen because of their experience? Is it possible that these diverse populations at your college support the Left because they fell it is the better path? No, in your view, it is group-think. Something that the current administration has manipulated and mastered during the last 5 years. For every real-life example you give to support your view, I could give one to reinforce mine. Look beyond yourself and towards others (i.e. not rich white males) and you may come to understand why people think and act the way they do.

 

OK, and the point of that is?

Addressed in previous post

 

No, this particular French Canadian hated America.

It does nothing to support your argument. It is needless. It is reinforcing stereotypes i.e. french Candaians are socialist anti-Americans. Same thing with the "black girl". You could have said student yet you chose to include black girl. It didn;t change the point of her argument (it actually reinforces her argument) and did nothing for yours. I could talk about a student who is a problem and said "This black student of mine is a problem." Is that supposed to imply that her race is part of the problem, or in your scenario, part of the weakness in her statement? Until you stop the labelling it doesn.t help accomplish what you say you are in support of.

 

That is what I meant by easy route. It is also reinforced when in your reply when you admit other students mentioned Reagan and IKE. Yet, you didn;t label this as nonsense or bother to mention this in your first post since it did not help your story. That's cheap.

 

While that is true he was also a member of the Republican Party who were the abolitionists of the time. After he finished saying that his main goal was to unify the country he also mentioned his "oft expressed wish that all men, everywhere were free." Lincoln was a politician, I'll readilly admit that and he was not a civil rights activist by toadys standards, but for the time he was and emancipating the slaves sort of proves that.

OK, I thought explained the history in the shift of the meaning of Republican and Democrat but I guess not. Look back in this folder but the Republicans of today have little in common with the Republicans of Lincoln. The ealriest Republicans were abolitionists (liberals), felt the nation was more important than the individual states (liberal), that govt. intervention was necessary for the betterment of the Union (liberal).

 

Also, while I applaud the Emancipation Proclamation it was half-assed. It only freed the slaves in the Confederate states. The slaves in states loyal to the Union were still slaves. It was a military and political strategy. It wasn't for the greater good of mankind.

 

Did I ever say that he was full of shit?

Your whole argument is an attempted rebuttal at the goals and purposes of Martin Luther King Jr., thus implying he is full of shit. If that isn't your intention ,and it appears that way, then I apologize.

 

Furthermore, I have never said anything postive about segregation or slavery and nothing negative about black people as a whole.

No, but you were sure to point out that black people discriminate against you, that racism is a "dead issue" in many parts and that laws that help further the well-being of minorites is wrong.

 

I'm thinking of moving to the South, the people tend to be much more polite down there.

Southern hospitality is great.. when you are the right color. I really hope you get to see the racism you aren't aware of because maybe it will enlighten your perspective. I can't help but think that, in all of this, it is your experiences and environment that shapes your views. You admitted that a whopping 16 black kids went to your school . In this envronment, I don't blame you for not being able to empathize, sympathize or understand why civil rights is such a big deal for others. It is a situation you have never had to deal with.

 

Nor do the ones who try to "correct" opposing views based soley on ideology with no regard for the truth. Some classes turned into 50 to 1 hr and 15 min long debates between my Profs and I.

You assume you are telling the truth when most of what you said has been generalized opinions and personal beliefs.

 

He only became President because JFK was shot and JFK had to steal the elction through massive voter fraud in Texas, Illinois, and New Jersey.

Agreed that JFK's death allowed him to become President.

 

Also agree that there was voter fraud in one of the dirtiest elections in U.S. history until the 2000 election changed the rules. NO doubt, Daly was instrumental in getting Illinois for Kennedy. He didn;t steal the elction though. That would imply that Nixon would have earned the Presidency.

 

He was a liar, no one can dispute that.

Agreed, but let's not stop there..... let's put it in context. You act as if LBJ is the only lying President. They are fucking politicians. Reagan was the biggest liar of them all... but LBJ was a bad President because he was a liar?

 

He was an adulterer.

Agreed... but how does this affect his ability to lead the nation? It is a spurrious relationship between adultery and the Presidency. IKE was an adulterer. Taft, FDR, Clinton. Harding. All adulterers. Once again, not relavent to the argument.

 

He led thousands of American men to their deaths for a war that he never intended to win despite his statements to the contrary.

Agreed.

 

He was a bully who treated his staff like shit and cursed them out frequently.

Once again, not an indictment of his ability to lead the Presidency. You must have forgotten the Reagan's treatment of thier personal staff... the treatment that gave Nancy reagan the term of endearment: Dragon Lady.

 

He expanded the welfare state, thus ensuring that the poor stay right where they are and never succeed.

 

He replaced one form of Governmental discrimination with another.

 

But, he did sign a couple of Civil Rights bills (that were supported more by his opposing party than his own).

See, this is where your argument falls to shit. You lose the objective examination and go into the "personal core beliefs as fact" BS.

 

Uhm.... Yes it is. I just did it. Take out the partisan parts, about AA and welfare and he still loses the "good vs. bad" debate.

You just admitted these were partisan parts so how does that help your argument? I agree 100% that LBJ is not the best President ever. Hell, I criticize him more for the Vietnam War than anyone. And the leftist out-of-left-field liberal media raked tis guy through the coals. But you are upset that Nixon is villified? The reality, something you claim to possess, is that in true discourse you have to look at the entire realm. As a teacher, I would be doing a disservice to my kids if I told them LBJ was the greatest President. I would be doing them a disservice if I didn;t explain escalation of war without declaration of war.. .esp. when they possibly face a similar future. In fact, when I teach LBJ, I use him as a great case of this dichotomy between foreign and domestic policy. I plan on doing the same for Bush I since I should be able to get to him this year. The ideal response would not be left vs. right debate but foreign policy and domestic policy accomplishments. Foreign poolicy? Abysmal failure. Domestic? While we disagree, I argue that it was a rousing success as it moved us forward to places this country was not at before.

 

How can one be equal at the other's expense without pissing off the side who is expending?

Civil rights and the advancement is not done at the white man's expense. it is done for the betterment of society and the furthering of a true united country.

 

No, it ensures that government, agencies, school boards, and big business continues to discriminate, although this time in favor of minorities.

 

this is nuts. Please show me the corporation that gives higher pay scales to African-Americans. That allows more African-americans to be hired than whites. Schools (i.e. colleges), I'll agree. In favor of minorities? No corporation is in favor of minorities unles sthat is their target group.

 

The way I look at it is that the only things whites should have had to/should have to give up is discrimination.

Whites are the ones perpetuating the discrimination. Without legislation that specifically protect the rights of minorities, then the discrimination and racism will continue to exist.

 

I am all for competition, but to give something to someone based soley on race is wrong.

Like a seat on the bus?

A ticket to the movie?

An equal education?

A job interview?

 

I won't argue that there has been no good to come from it.

Good

 

Some good has come of just about anything, but it doesn't make it right.

Not true.

 

I oppose discrimination of all kinds.

We wouldn't know it by your words.

 

OK, what does that say about each of those four groups of people? The same thing. Unless you are implying that the white man refuses minorities the ability toi live with one another, then I don't see the problem. People live where they live. The only thing I ask of society is that every body is treated with respect and that no one is denied a job that he is qualified for based on race. I don't need shiny happy people holding hands, just a mutual respect. I think my goal is much more reasonable, yet still an impossibility.

This is not living in reality.

 

OK, what does that say about each of those four groups of people? The same thing. Unless you are implying that the white man refuses minorities the ability toi live with one another, then I don't see the problem. People live where they live. The only thing I ask of society is that every body is treated with respect and that no one is denied a job that he is qualified for based on race. I don't need shiny happy people holding hands, just a mutual respect. I think my goal is much more reasonable, yet still an impossibility.

Addressed in above post

 

I know why it was implemented and I even understand the rationale and may have even supported it briefly at the time.

Good. You should also understand that we are far from racial understanding, as this very debate reinforces, to be letting go of legislation that protects civil rights.

 

How do you know that a more qualified person loses out because of their race, only very rarely? How would one go about quantifying that?

Typically, by lawsuits or tesimonials.

 

I would contend that their existance is an impediment to that goal. When you look at AA it's really a typical socialist type program, it attempts to rob from the rich to give to the poor and ineveitably when you take something from someone they don't like it.

 

Good god man. Once again, you say you want no one to be discriminated against., Why don't you just say you don't want whitey to be picked on anymore because your ancestors never owned slaves and get it over with? Do you think blacks who live in the ghettos, the Hispanics who live in the barrio, want to live there? No. Becasuse of our racist past, we have created a society of schism and distrust. A society where the playing field is not equal. A socity where the past directly affects the present and where people live. A society that has cultivated the pverty culture long before LBJ and the Great Society. A society that requires radical change and action to corrct the wrong and to obtain thaat goal of true unity. Would you like to entertain the idea that African-Americans were in a better place beofre LBJ because they "knew their place" and didn't step on the white man's shoes? Maybe this is just a socio-economic issue and you want to protect the rich man's wealth. Lets conveniently forget that the largest proportionate percentage of the poor are minorities even though the actual largest number of poor are whites. Do you really believe that every rich white man got there with hard work? If you choose to sacrifice public good and the advancement of society to protect your dime, then so be it. But don't pretend or argue that you support the basic principles of the civil rights movement.

Some Guy, I do not intend to copy and quote all of your post, because I do not think it is necessary. I would just like to add a few comments.

 

As far as the LBJ business goes, I was obviously not in the classroom, so I probably misinterpreted your speech. I have not studied Johnson a great deal, and I honestly hold no solid opinion of him, good or bad.

 

As far as college, it irks me when conservatives complain about the liberalism run amok, when I have encountered little of it in my experience. My course concentration is history, with a minor in political science. My favorite political science professor is a raging liberal, but she is respectful of all opinions, and recognizes the differences in ideologies.

 

As far as postings go, I can not recall encountering any liberal propaganda on the walls honestly. I guess it just comes down to a difference in institutions. For what it is worth, my county is a very even mix of republicans and democrats.

 

If you think there is anything I "conveniently ignored," accept my apologies as I probably overlooked some things. In fairness, it was a long rant.

OK.

 

And with that I bow out of this thread...