PDA

View Full Version : Mississippi Governor to run for President 2012?



Roger Perry
12-22-2010, 01:00 PM
Haley Barbour says the poorKu Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) is a just a misunderstood group of good old boys who got together from time to to time to do good things for the community.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/37225

Another Republican in line to run for the President of the United States in 2012??????????:rolleyes:http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/01/the-anti-obama.html

BonMallari
12-22-2010, 01:30 PM
Haley Barbour says the poorKu Klux Klan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan) is a just a misunderstood group of good old boys who got together from time to to time to do good things for the community.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/37225

Another Republican in line to run for the President of the United States in 2012??????????:rolleyes:http://www.newsweek.com/2010/01/01/the-anti-obama.html


the "quote" you attribute to Haley Barbour is actually that of the author of the article and his interpretation...

playing fast and loose with the facts/quotes again ???

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/1222/Haley-Barbour-Will-his-comments-on-civil-rights-era-nix-a-presidential-run



Governor Barbour discussed the Citizens Council as well as the Ku Klux Klan in an interview for The Weekly Standard magazine. "You heard of the Citizens Councils?" Barbour said in the interview. "Up north they think it was like the KKK. Where I come from it was an organization of town leaders. In Yazoo City they passed a resolution that said anybody who started a chapter of the Klan would get their ass run out of town.

subroc
12-22-2010, 02:08 PM
wasn't the only member of congress in recent memory that actually had been a member of the ku klux klan from the racist democrat party? (robert byrd)

So if it is as the left wing says, they should welcome him with open arms. If it is not, the left can continue to hate him for no apparent reason.


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

Blackstone
12-23-2010, 08:13 PM
It's hard to believe the Republican party would support such a man for President . . . . well, maybe not. Is there any wonder so few minorities support and identify with that party?

subroc
12-23-2010, 08:35 PM
I wonder why minorities accepted byrd?

Blackstone
12-23-2010, 09:54 PM
I wonder why minorities accepted byrd?

Some did, and some didnít. But, at least Byrd publically admitted he was wrong, and did apologize for his past involvement with the KKK and his stance on segregation. You can decide for yourself if it was sincere and if he had really changed. I do believe people are capable of change. However, I would have had a hard time accepting him.

In contrast, Barbour is not apologetic for his support of the White Citizens Council. Nor, does he apologize for his blatant misrepresentation of what they were about and the things they did. He can be added to the list of other unrepentant Republicans that have espoused racist views. Yet, the Republican Party does little or nothing to distance themselves from these people. That is why most minorities donít identify with them or support them. It may not seem important to you if it is not directed at you, but when it is, trust me, it is very important.

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-23-2010, 11:29 PM
Some did, and some didn’t. But, at least Byrd publically admitted he was wrong, and did apologize for his past involvement with the KKK and his stance on segregation. You can decide for yourself if it was sincere and if he had really changed. I do believe people are capable of change. However, I would have had a hard time accepting him.

In contrast, Barbour is not apologetic for his support of the White Citizens Council. Nor, does he apologize for his blatant misrepresentation of what they were about and the things they did. He can be added to the list of other unrepentant Republicans that have espoused racist views. Yet, the Republican Party does little or nothing to distance themselves from these people. That is why most minorities don’t identify with them or support them. It may not seem important to you if it is not directed at you, but when it is, trust me, it is very important.

Yea and....In contrast, The Obama Administration is not apologetic for the actions of the NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY. Nor, does he apologize for thier blatant misrepresentation of what they are about and the things they do. He can be added to the list of other unrepentant Democrats tha thave espoused racist views. Yet, the Democratic party does little or nothing to distance themselves from these people......It may not seem important to you if it is not directed at you, but when it is, turst me, it is very important.

GOOOOOOOO TEAMMMMMMM Equality!!!!

NCA

BonMallari
12-23-2010, 11:34 PM
It's hard to believe the Republican party would support such a man for President . . . . well, maybe not. Is there any wonder so few minorities support and identify with that party?

with all due respect Blackstone,don't assume that all the party supports Barbour, his views, and also there are other minorities like myself that identify themselves as conservatives and we don't tolerate racism of any kind...Racism is not a republican or democrat problem, its a societal problem and should not be tolerated by anyone

Blackstone
12-23-2010, 11:58 PM
Yea and....In contrast, The Obama Administration is not apologetic for the actions of the NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY. Nor, does he apologize for thier blatant misrepresentation of what they are about and the things they do. He can be added to the list of other unrepentant Democrats tha thave espoused racist views. Yet, the Democratic party does little or nothing to distance themselves from these people......It may not seem important to you if it is not directed at you, but when it is, turst me, it is very important.

GOOOOOOOO TEAMMMMMMM Equality!!!!

NCA

Why would the Obama Administration apologize for the actions of the New Black Panther Party? Are they apart of his administration? Have they even identified themselves as Democrats? I must have missed that. And, since you mentioned it, how did they blatantly misrepresent what they were about? It seems to me, they have been pretty clear what their agenda is.

Now, on to the Democrats that have espoused racist views. While I have no doubt there are Democrats that are racists, please point out the ones espousing racist view points, and what they said or did. Then we can have a discussion.

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 01:00 AM
with all due respect Blackstone,don't assume that all the party supports Barbour, his views, and also there are other minorities like myself that identify themselves as conservatives and we don't tolerate racism of any kind...Racism is not a republican or democrat problem, its a societal problem and should not be tolerated by anyone

I make no such assumption. However, it seems the party as a whole tends to turn a blind eye to those that make such comments, and does not make them unwelcome within its ranks. I agree that racism is not exclusive to either party, and should not be tolerated. But, that is just the point, they have been tolerating it. As a result, those with racist views tend to gravitate to the Republican Party.

subroc
12-24-2010, 05:12 AM
Blackstone

I expect you are willing to dismiss any perceived racism that comes from white democrats and highlight any perceived racism that comes form republicans because you are a democrat. There are so many examples of democrats making similar racist comments and they are rarely if ever challenged or sanctioned for them. a simple internet search will give you all you need.

Nowhere is there any stated position on any republican platform that expouses racist view.

I expect you are drawn to the democrat party because they allow you to draw the race card unchallenged.

dnf777
12-24-2010, 09:02 AM
Blackstone

I expect you are willing to dismiss any perceived racism that comes from white democrats and highlight any perceived racism that comes form republicans because you are a democrat. There are so many examples of democrats making similar racist comments and they are rarely if ever challenged or sanctioned for them. a simple internet search will give you all you need.

Nowhere is there any stated position on any republican platform that expouses racist view.

I expect you are drawn to the democrat party because they allow you to draw the race card unchallenged.


I didn't hear Blackstone dismiss any such racism. He explicitly stated that both parties have been guilty and its wrong.

Nor did I see any race card being played, until just now. (the accusation of it being played)

I think its ironic that we are rehashing racial discrimination in gov't, at a time when we've just ended the systematic discrimination against gays. And many still don't see the similarities. :confused:

subroc
12-24-2010, 09:52 AM
well, Dave

feel free to read both posts, his and mine. he found it acceptable to unilaterally paint the republican party as racist. I found it acceptable to paint the democrats as race baiters. either premice is true, false or somewhere in the middle. I expect the democrats are race baiters and circle the wagons for their own and find that they get mileage out of painting the republican party as the racist party.

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 10:50 AM
Blackstone

I expect you are willing to dismiss any perceived racism that comes from white democrats and highlight any perceived racism that comes form republicans because you are a democrat.

You would expect wrong. I don’t dismiss racism when it comes from anyone, Democrat, Republican, black, white or any ethnicity. I have been on this board a while, and never have I aligned myself with, or endorsed either the Democratic or Republican parties. I don’t consider myself a Democrat, Republican, conservative or liberal. I don’t believe in blindly following the party line of any group. I try to vote for the person that I think will best serve my interests while in office.


There are so many examples of democrats making similar racist comments and they are rarely if ever challenged or sanctioned for them. a simple internet search will give you all you need.

So, are you saying that because some Democrats have made racist comments it somehow justifies some Republicans making them? That’s sort of silly. I’m not interested in playing tit for tat. Also, there is a difference between making a comment, and coming out in support of a group with a racist agenda. If any high ranking Democrat had come out in support of the New Black Panther party, they would have been crucified by the Republicans and by the media, and you know it. Barbour came out in support of an organization that he knows did far more to intimidate voters and oppress minorities than the New Black Party could have ever hoped to accomplish. Yet, this is a man that the Republicans can support running for President?


Nowhere is there any stated position on any republican platform that expouses racist view.

I never said the Republican Party supported a racist platform. My comment is they fail to distance themselves from those that do support a racist platform. When David Duke tried to run for President, the Republican Party immediately disavowed any support of him, and went to great lengths to distance themselves from him. That is how it should be. However, that is no longer the case. They have allowed the likes of Pat Buchanan, Rusty DePass, Audra Shay, Rush Limbaugh & Glen Beck to align themselves with the Republican Party without so much as a word.


I expect you are drawn to the democrat party because they allow you to draw the race card unchallenged.

Also, please explain to me how I played the “race card.” I guess it’s okay to support racism, it’s just not okay to point it out.

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 11:04 AM
well, Dave

feel free to read both posts, his and mine. he found it acceptable to unilaterally paint the republican party as racist. I found it acceptable to paint the democrats as race baiters. either premice is true, false or somewhere in the middle. I expect the democrats are race baiters and circle the wagons for their own and find that they get mileage out of painting the republican party as the racist party.

You should re-read my posts because I did no such thing. I think youíre kind of prone to exaggeration. I said the Republican Party turns a blind eye to racists that align themselves with the party. That was it. That is not the same as ďunilaterallyĒ painting the Republican Party as racist.

subroc
12-24-2010, 11:46 AM
...So, are you saying that because some Democrats have made racist comments it somehow justifies some Republicans making them? Thatís sort of silly...

No, what I am saying in a nut shell is when democrats make racist comments or perceived racist comments they are not sanctioned in any manner by the left, the media, the NAACP, the congressional black caucus. I am also saying that any utterance that pertains to blacks by a conservative, or republican or even a tea party member is sanctioned, meanings are distorted in an attempt to paint republicans and conservatives as racist.

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-24-2010, 12:26 PM
Blackstone

I expect you are willing to dismiss any perceived racism that comes from white democrats and highlight any perceived racism that comes form republicans because you are a democrat. There are so many examples of democrats making similar racist comments and they are rarely if ever challenged or sanctioned for them. a simple internet search will give you all you need.

Nowhere is there any stated position on any republican platform that expouses racist view.

I expect you are drawn to the democrat party because they allow you to draw the race card unchallenged.


No, what I am saying in a nut shell is when democrats make racist comments or perceived racist comments they are not sanctioned in any manner by the left, the media, the NAACP, the congressional black caucus. I am also saying that any utterance that pertains to blacks by a conservative, or republican or even a tea party member is sanctioned, meanings are distorted in an attempt to paint republicans and conservatives as racist.

BINGO BINGO...and that was my point as well Blackstone...

You seemed to miss that, I didnt expect you to link it because as you point out correctly there is NO "DIRECT" link between the two....

but as you so willingly point out that REPUBLICANS DO NOT DISTANCE themselve from "hot button topics"

NEITHER WILL THE DEMOCRAT"S OR OBAMA....in fact I think he loves it and plays it well....

By doing nothing about it, says just as much to me as supporting it.....

NEW BLACK PANTHERS....and that OHHH SO STUPID COP IN CT....just HARRASSING THE BLACK MAN.

its the new sheik thing....point out the white man....and disguise the rampant racisim with-in minorities.

Look, I am not going to sugar coat anything, if you were to meet me you would know I dont have a racisit bone in me, but I will not play the PC game. So to "read" my words is different than to see me and how I would engage the conversation....I dont want you to READ what I am saying above and think of me as a racisit but the truth is what it is and I see MORE reverse racisism than I do what would be called traditional racisim 10 fold. Maybe it is becasue I live in the BAY AREA of CALIFORNIA and miniorities feel comfortable to "LASH OUT" with their words, actions, and behiviors in general because they will be given a pass...maybe its different down south still...

but when I see our PRESIDENT and ATTY GENERAL, not only doing nothing about people praticing racisim but in an underlying tone praising it (by taking sides) it hurts my confidence in the administration that ANYONE WILL GET A FAIR SHAKE.

So to take just as I have, a single event or person, and PAINT either side is just not accurate...you are trying to paint the republicans out to be a party welcoming and harboring racisim....Subroc and I just dont see it that way.

NCA

Marvin S
12-24-2010, 12:26 PM
No, what I am saying in a nut shell is when democrats make racist comments or perceived racist comments they are not sanctioned in any manner by the left, the media, the NAACP, the congressional black caucus. I am also saying that any utterance that pertains to blacks by a conservative, or republican or even a tea party member is sanctioned, meanings are distorted in an attempt to paint republicans and conservatives as racist.


It's hard to believe the Republican party would support such a man for President . . . . well, maybe not. Is there any wonder so few minorities support and identify with that party?

Blackstone - He may run, he may not, he's probably a candidate that is qualified to hold the position of POTUS, unlike the present occupant. Whether he weathers the battle only time will tell. You know he's a viable candidate when the press is all over him like a dirty shirt for his remark.

It's a sign of being grown up to let meaningless remarks pass without making a huge issue of them. Consider the source, the worst bigots I have known also had another less than redeeming quality, they were ignorant :o. I don't associate with people like that, as most who generally vote R also do not. If he shows in the runup to nomination to be less than fair & forthright, he'll be toast!

I quoted Subroc's post as that is the general perception among those who vote for the best candidate regardless of party. As long as the most quoted from your minority are Sharpton, Jackson, Waters, etc. rather than Cosby, Condi & Sowell your side has no credibility.

It was OK when BHO dumped charter schools in DC? Are you familiar with Dunbar HS in DC, many of the quality black leaders of today attended Dunbar, it was then a quality school which it is not today. Ever wonder why? I believe one of the major problems facing your side is the lack of attention they give to their youth. Too many young men are being allowed to go through life without the tools to earn an honest living, are you OK with that? Too many young females are pregnant when they should be acting like teenagers & being allowed to grow up before they are asked to take the responsibilities of adulthood. Work on issues you can control.

Somehow, I don't see you as voting for any party other than D based on your above quote & your later attempted defense of same :). But that's OK, I just vote differently, I vote for the person who I believe will move this country forward as fairly as possible. I had my opportunity, I want to make sure others enjoy the same!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bill Billups
12-24-2010, 12:56 PM
I don't see how the statements that HB made in the context that he made them are racist. If they had been made by anyone other than a white conservative from Mississippi then noone would have thought twice about them. Its always assumed that a white man from the south is racist. HB represents the new south republicans that are all about politics and not race.

HB was referring to racial violence in his town. Many towns in Mississippi wanted the KKK out of their communities because it was an embarassment and also bad for business. In Meridian it wasn't the feds or the national media that ran out the KKK in the 60's. It was the local business leaders. The KKK was not only intimidating blacks, but also Jewish and Catholic members of the community.

The only question about HB in this mess is his judgement. As long as he has been involved in politics he knows to never ever make any comments about civil rights history or race being a white southerner. Those comments will be snipped out of context and will be sound bites in a political ad in the future.

Bill

dnf777
12-24-2010, 01:49 PM
I don't see how the statements that HB made in the context that he made them are racist. If they had been made by anyone other than a white conservative from Mississippi then noone would have thought twice about them. Its always assumed that a white man from the south is racist. HB represents the new south republicans that are all about politics and not race.

HB was referring to racial violence in his town. Many towns in Mississippi wanted the KKK out of their communities because it was an embarassment and also bad for business. In Meridian it wasn't the feds or the national media that ran out the KKK in the 60's. It was the local business leaders. The KKK was not only intimidating blacks, but also Jewish and Catholic members of the community.

The only question about HB in this mess is his judgement. As long as he has been involved in politics he knows to never ever make any comments about civil rights history or race being a white southerner. Those comments will be snipped out of context and will be sound bites in a political ad in the future.

Bill

I'm more concerned with his strong lobbyist ties. He represented everything that many of us have said is wrong with gov't today.

I fear he is just a 300# version of Tom DeLay.

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 03:38 PM
With all due respect, isn't the bold type above the very thing wrong with most thinking today. What are you going to do for me. Never mind what's right for the country.
Glad you choose the best man for the job though, maybe some of what's good for you will be good for me.
Walt

Walt,

Perhaps my meaning came across wrong. In general, what's in the country's best interest is in my best interest as well. If the economy is good, I have a job and make money, if not, I suffer. If they raise taxes, I pay more, so I suffer. If jobs go overseas, I risk losing mine. So, rather than vote some party line, I try to vote for whose going to do me the most good.

depittydawg
12-24-2010, 03:53 PM
Walt,

Perhaps my meaning came across wrong. In general, what's in the country's best interest is in my best interest as well. If the economy is good, I have a job and make money, if not, I suffer. If they raise taxes, I pay more, so I suffer. If jobs go overseas, I risk losing mine. So, rather than vote some party line, I try to vote for whose going to do me the most good.

Well, if the Republicans run a middle of the road moderate like Haley Barbour, anything can happen in 2012... ;)

BonMallari
12-24-2010, 04:11 PM
Well, if the Republicans run a middle of the road moderate like Haley Barbour, anything can happen in 2012... ;)

HB is NOT a moderate republican

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 04:17 PM
BINGO BINGO...and that was my point as well Blackstone...

You seemed to miss that, I didnt expect you to link it because as you point out correctly there is NO "DIRECT" link between the two....

but as you so willingly point out that REPUBLICANS DO NOT DISTANCE themselve from "hot button topics"

NEITHER WILL THE DEMOCRAT"S OR OBAMA....in fact I think he loves it and plays it well....

By doing nothing about it, says just as much to me as supporting it.....

NEW BLACK PANTHERS....and that OHHH SO STUPID COP IN CT....just HARRASSING THE BLACK MAN.

its the new sheik thing....point out the white man....and disguise the rampant racisim with-in minorities.

Look, I am not going to sugar coat anything, if you were to meet me you would know I dont have a racisit bone in me, but I will not play the PC game. So to "read" my words is different than to see me and how I would engage the conversation....I dont want you to READ what I am saying above and think of me as a racisit but the truth is what it is and I see MORE reverse racisism than I do what would be called traditional racisim 10 fold. Maybe it is becasue I live in the BAY AREA of CALIFORNIA and miniorities feel comfortable to "LASH OUT" with their words, actions, and behiviors in general because they will be given a pass...maybe its different down south still...

but when I see our PRESIDENT and ATTY GENERAL, not only doing nothing about people praticing racisim but in an underlying tone praising it (by taking sides) it hurts my confidence in the administration that ANYONE WILL GET A FAIR SHAKE.

So to take just as I have, a single event or person, and PAINT either side is just not accurate...you are trying to paint the republicans out to be a party welcoming and harboring racisim....Subroc and I just dont see it that way.

NCA

You still donít understand. This should not be about playing tit for tat. One doing something wrong does not justify it being done by the other side.

I donít know what it is like in the Bay area, but whichever side racism is coming from, itís still wrong. But, I can tell you, racism is still alive and well in much of this country. If youíre not seeing it, you need to get out more. You donít have to go down south to find it. In fact, in recent years, I have experienced less of it in the south than in other parts of the country.

I still donít know what you perceive as Obamaís connection to the New Black Panther Party. He doesnít need to apologize for them, or distance himself from them any more than any past president needed to distance themselves from the KKK, skin heads or neo-nazis. What did they do about those groups? Were you concerned about who was getting a fair shake then?

If this was a single person or single event, there would be no issue, but itís not. Iím not trying to paint the entire party as racist. However, can you honestly there isnít a racist element that has aligned itself with the Republican Party, and can you honestly say the Republican Party has tried to push these people away?

depittydawg
12-24-2010, 04:17 PM
HB is NOT a moderate republican

That was a joke my friend. Sarcasm...

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 04:57 PM
The thing I have found most interesting about this discussing is that only one Republican (and, I’m making that assumption), BonMallari, seemed to find anything wrong with Barbour’s comments and support of the White Citizens Council. Everyone else immediately began to point fingers at the Democrats, left wing media, NAACP, Obama Administration, etc. trying to show they were just as bad. I even offered up a few others with racist stances that have attached themselves to the Republican band wagon. Once again, no one seemed to find their racist views abhorrent and think they should not be tolerated. No one thought the Republicans should distance themselves from these people. This is what I was talking about, these views seem to be ignored, if not tolerated, by the Republican Party. So, given the connection of these people to the Republican Party, do you think most minorities would feel comfortable affiliating themselves with the Republican Party? I go back to my original comment, “Is there any wonder so few minorities support and identify with that party?”

subroc
12-24-2010, 06:27 PM
Well, on that issue, I doubt that HB is a racist much as I doubt that there are 57 states.

Blackstone
12-24-2010, 08:14 PM
I jumped on calling someone a racist a few months back, turned out I was wrong. Mislead or not, I won't do it again. It's gotten so that you can't believe a thing you see or hear.
If it came right down to it, I doubt there are many people on this forum that wouldn't give the shirt off his back to anyone, of any race, that needed it.
Merry Christmas, to you, and not just if you're a Christian.
Walt

Thanks, Walt. Merry Christmas to you and your family.

Roger Perry
12-25-2010, 12:22 PM
Well, on that issue, I doubt that HB is a racist much as I doubt that there are 57 states.

Or that North Korea is our ally or tax cuts increase taxes.;-)

Marvin S
12-26-2010, 01:38 PM
You still donít understand. This should not be about playing tit for tat. One doing something wrong does not justify it being done by the other side.

I donít know what it is like in the Bay area, but whichever side racism is coming from, itís still wrong. But, I can tell you, racism is still alive and well in much of this country. If youíre not seeing it, you need to get out more. You donít have to go down south to find it. In fact, in recent years, I have experienced less of it in the south than in other parts of the country.

If you look for something hard enough I'm sure you will find it with your brand of seeing things as they are not. Around 150 years ago many young people sacrificed their lives as they felt slavery was wrong. Yet you don't believe that in itself was enough. What was done since by your "Friends, the D's" has set this nation back, immensely.

Look at it this way - XXX, the businessman needs a new employee with some skills, so he advertises. 3 applicants end up being fairly equal, who will XXX hire? Oh I forgot to add - 1 applicant is a minority male, 1 is a female & 1 is a Caucasian. Based on the fact that the business could be involved in potentially expensive, both in time & money, litigation if some of the potential hires felt they weren't getting their due, Who is the sensible hire? You've answered the question by your posts on this thread :(.

I would note that I have seen many talented minorities & have done my best to promote their skills if they had those skills. Many are not given the chance to participate in the give & take of the private sector even if they desired. The baggage they bring by government edict is not worth the potential trouble.


I still donít know what you perceive as Obamaís connection to the New Black Panther Party. He doesnít need to apologize for them, or distance himself from them any more than any past president needed to distance themselves from the KKK, skin heads or neo-nazis. What did they do about those groups? Were you concerned about who was getting a fair shake then?

If this was a single person or single event, there would be no issue, but itís not. Iím not trying to paint the entire party as racist. However, can you honestly there isnít a racist element that has aligned itself with the Republican Party, and can you honestly say the Republican Party has tried to push these people away?

You need to talk to Michael Steele about that :). The party of R's is who we elect from the people willing to participate in the process. More often than not even our candidates are seriously lacking so we look at things in a broad context & pick the one who will cause the least mischief, hopefully.

As for your reference to to SH's & NN's, they had little appeal & were bankrupted in the courts. But most people in charge in the south when the KKK was active were D's & they were admitted members, apologies not accepted as they were willing participants.


The thing I have found most interesting about this discussing is that only one Republican (and, Iím making that assumption), BonMallari, seemed to find anything wrong with Barbourís comments and support of the White Citizens Council. Everyone else immediately began to point fingers at the Democrats, left wing media, NAACP, Obama Administration, etc. trying to show they were just as bad. I even offered up a few others with racist stances that have attached themselves to the Republican band wagon. Once again, no one seemed to find their racist views abhorrent and think they should not be tolerated. No one thought the Republicans should distance themselves from these people. This is what I was talking about, these views seem to be ignored, if not tolerated, by the Republican Party. So, given the connection of these people to the Republican Party, do you think most minorities would feel comfortable affiliating themselves with the Republican Party? I go back to my original comment, ďIs there any wonder so few minorities support and identify with that party?Ē

No, they were showing you what those you defend look like in a sensible person's eyes. We are not responsible for anyone unless we choose to support them financially, which is why in most cases, their strongest appeal is to the fringe. But you fail to recognize that because you don't want to. I for one, rarely listen to TV or radio, but I do read a lot & attempt to reason things, for better or for worse, in my own way.

But Blackstone, you post a blanket indictment of those who chose to post on this thread as you felt no one was sufficiently contrite to your perceived slight. I would venture that all of us have had experiences in life that were less than perfect, but we benefitted by those experiences & continued forward. You might consider manning up & being responsible for yourself without looking for someone to blame, it will change your perspective.

Blackstone
12-27-2010, 01:20 AM
If you look for something hard enough I'm sure you will find it with your brand of seeing things as they are not. Around 150 years ago many young people sacrificed their lives as they felt slavery was wrong. Yet you don't believe that in itself was enough. What was done since by your "Friends, the D's" has set this nation back, immensely.

First, I didnít have to look hard. The man said what he said in support of a well know racist organization. I didnít twist it or change it into anything. He is a high ranking member of the Republican Party. Obviously, that attitude is tolerated within the party or they would have spoken out against it. I heard a few Republicans attempt to spin and trivialize his comments, but none spoke out against it. If they did, I missed it. Please point it out to me.

Second, I thought I stated very clearly that I donít align myself with any political party, so you can save the ĎĒyour "Friends, the D's"í comment.

Also, the Civil war was not fought to end slavery or because so many people felt it was wrong. This is a popular misconception, but you have only to look at the facts to determine itís untrue. The war was fought to preserve the Union. That is the reason those young people sacrificed their lives. The freeing of the slaves was a consequence of the war, not the reason for it. Lincoln himself stated that publically on several occasions. In his response to Horace Greeleyís editorial in the New York Tribune which had urged complete abolition of slavery, Lincoln wrote:

ďMy paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.Ē

There was plenty of racism in the north at that time. It is absurd to think that a significant number of people would choose to die to help people they abhorred.


Look at it this way - XXX, the businessman needs a new employee with some skills, so he advertises. 3 applicants end up being fairly equal, who will XXX hire? Oh I forgot to add - 1 applicant is a minority male, 1 is a female & 1 is a Caucasian. Based on the fact that the business could be involved in potentially expensive, both in time & money, litigation if some of the potential hires felt they weren't getting their due, Who is the sensible hire? You've answered the question by your posts on this thread :(.

I not sure if you understand how Affirmative Action worked. The Gov. only imposes sanctions on private business if that business is found guilty of discriminating against minorities in hiring and promotion practices. If the business doesnít do that, they have nothing to worry about. Most large companies implemented their own Affirmative Action policies to try to protect themselves from law suites resulting from inappropriate practices by their managers and HR, and from opportunists that would seek to sue them unjustly.

Based on your hypothetical scenario, you would think that a large number of minorities are being hired over whites. However, if you look at the ethnic make up of most large companies, I think you will find the vast majority of new hires, existing employees, upper level managers, and members of the Board of Directors are still white. The fact is, Affirmative Action has been dead at most large corporations for years. The official policy now is not to discriminate in hiring and promotion practices, but they are not to giving preference based on ethnicity.

However, Iím not sure this is germane to the topic of this thread. Nothing about hiring preferences was mentioned until you brought it up. This was about why minorities are not attracted to the Republican Party.


You need to talk to Michael Steele about that :). The party of R's is who we elect from the people willing to participate in the process. More often than not even our candidates are seriously lacking so we look at things in a broad context & pick the one who will cause the least mischief, hopefully.

But, donít political parties seek to align themselves with people that have similar ideologies? I guess Steel should be more vigilant about what kinds of people he allows to affiliate themselves with the party. And, maybe the party leadership should have a talk with Steel if they object.


As for your reference to to SH's & NN's, they had little appeal & were bankrupted in the courts. But most people in charge in the south when the KKK was active were D's & they were admitted members, apologies not accepted as they were willing participants.

You may not realize it, but there are still a significant number of white supremacist groups operating in the U.S. I only mentioned those in response to a statement made about why the Obama administration didnít distance itself, or do anything about the New Black Panther Party. My response was that his administration has no reason to. Just as previous administrations had no reason to do anything about the white supremacist groups that were around when they were in office. They had no connection to those groups.

You are correct that most high ranking politicians in the south during the heyday of the KKK were Democrats. During that period, blacks overwhelmingly voted Republican. However, I think you also have to acknowledge that the base of both parties has changed significantly since then. After Truman desegregated the military, and the Democratic party included a Civil Rights plank in their platform, several of those top ranking southern Dems. (Dixiecrats) that supported segregation and Jim Crow split from the party. However, it was President Johnsonís signing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 that caused the Dixiecrats to begin leaving the Democratic Party, and join the Republican Party to support Johnsonís opponent (Sen. Barry Goldwater), who opposed the Civil Rights Act. The first of the Dixiecrats to defect to the Republican Party was Strom Thurman, an avowed racist and segregationist. Other Dixiecrats followed. Then, there was the ďSouthern StrategyĒ first employed by Nixon, then later continued by Reagan & George H. W. Bush that pandered to southern Democratic voters that still supported ďstates rights,Ē segregation, and were anti-civil rights.


No, they were showing you what those you defend look like in a sensible person's eyes.

I donít recall defending Democrats on any racist comment or action. Please show me where I did. If you somehow took it that way, you were mistaken.


We are not responsible for anyone unless we choose to support them financially, which is why in most cases, their strongest appeal is to the fringe. But you fail to recognize that because you don't want to. I for one, rarely listen to TV or radio, but I do read a lot & attempt to reason things, for better or for worse, in my own way.

You are responsible for who you choose to associate with and who you allow to associate with you. I, for one, choose not to associate with racists, be they black or white, Democrat or Republican. Nor, do I choose to be around people that tolerate it because by tolerating it, you simply embolden those that feel that way.


But Blackstone, you post a blanket indictment of those who chose to post on this thread as you felt no one was sufficiently contrite to your perceived slight.

Again, you have misunderstood. I made no blanket indictment of the people on this board. My only indictment was that the Republican Party, as a whole, does little to distance itself from those with racist views that have aligned themselves with the party. If you feel I have slighted you, that would only be true if you are one that feels itís okay to ignore the views of the racist that identifies themselves as Republicans.


I would venture that all of us have had experiences in life that were less than perfect, but we benefitted by those experiences & continued forward. You might consider manning up & being responsible for yourself without looking for someone to blame, it will change your perspective.

I donít know what youíre talking about. What is it that you think I should be taking responsibility for? In this thread, I havenít asked anyone for anything or blamed anyone for my circumstance in life. But, what I have done is ďman upĒ and publically state my opposition to the support of racists and racism where ever I encounter them. Perhaps you should man up, stop excusing it, and do the same.

ducknwork
12-27-2010, 08:07 AM
I made no blanket indictment of the people on this board.



The thing I have found most interesting about this discussing is that only one Republican (and, I’m making that assumption), BonMallari, seemed to find anything wrong with Barbour’s comments and support of the White Citizens Council. Everyone else immediately began to point fingers at the Democrats, left wing media, NAACP, Obama Administration, etc. trying to show they were just as bad. I even offered up a few others with racist stances that have attached themselves to the Republican band wagon. Once again, no one seemed to find their racist views abhorrent and think they should not be tolerated. No one thought the Republicans should distance themselves from these people. This is what I was talking about, these views seem to be ignored, if not tolerated, by the Republican Party. So, given the connection of these people to the Republican Party, do you think most minorities would feel comfortable affiliating themselves with the Republican Party? I go back to my original comment, “Is there any wonder so few minorities support and identify with that party?”


Just sayin....

Marvin S
12-27-2010, 09:48 AM
Just sayin....

:) :) :) :) :) .....

ducknwork
12-27-2010, 10:32 AM
BTW, I don't appreciate being accused of being racist, or tolerating white on black racism. Although, I guess I wasn't included in the blanket statement since I am not a republican...

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 10:42 AM
If you look for something hard enough I'm sure you will find it with your brand of seeing things as they are not. Around 150 years ago many young people sacrificed their lives as they felt slavery was wrong. Yet you don't believe that in itself was enough. What was done since by your "Friends, the D's" has set this nation back, immensely.

Look at it this way - XXX, the businessman needs a new employee with some skills, so he advertises. 3 applicants end up being fairly equal, who will XXX hire? Oh I forgot to add - 1 applicant is a minority male, 1 is a female & 1 is a Caucasian. Based on the fact that the business could be involved in potentially expensive, both in time & money, litigation if some of the potential hires felt they weren't getting their due, Who is the sensible hire? You've answered the question by your posts on this thread :(.

I would note that I have seen many talented minorities & have done my best to promote their skills if they had those skills. Many are not given the chance to participate in the give & take of the private sector even if they desired. The baggage they bring by government edict is not worth the potential trouble.



You need to talk to Michael Steele about that :). The party of R's is who we elect from the people willing to participate in the process. More often than not even our candidates are seriously lacking so we look at things in a broad context & pick the one who will cause the least mischief, hopefully.

As for your reference to to SH's & NN's, they had little appeal & were bankrupted in the courts. But most people in charge in the south when the KKK was active were D's & they were admitted members, apologies not accepted as they were willing participants.



No, they were showing you what those you defend look like in a sensible person's eyes. We are not responsible for anyone unless we choose to support them financially, which is why in most cases, their strongest appeal is to the fringe. But you fail to recognize that because you don't want to. I for one, rarely listen to TV or radio, but I do read a lot & attempt to reason things, for better or for worse, in my own way.

But Blackstone, you post a blanket indictment of those who chose to post on this thread as you felt no one was sufficiently contrite to your perceived slight. I would venture that all of us have had experiences in life that were less than perfect, but we benefitted by those experiences & continued forward. You might consider manning up & being responsible for yourself without looking for someone to blame, it will change your perspective.

You just have to look at the 2008 election and who the Republicans chose to have run for President. One of them admitted he knew nothing about economics even said our Country was in good economic shape.(At a morning rally in Jacksonville, McCain noted what he called "tremendous turmoil in our financial markets and Wall Street,'' but continued to say he believes the economy is sound -- ) By the afternoon, McCain had altered his message. Speaking before a town hall meeting with a Hispanic organization in Orlando
("Our economy is at risk today, have no doubt how serious this problem is,'' McCain said. "We've got to fix this economy, which the fundamentals of are at great risk right now.... I want to promise you that it's my highest priority. ")
McCain even flip flopped on other issues
http://www.alternet.org/election08/90956/?page=entire

And look who he chose for a running mate, A woman whose best known for being a mayor of 5,000 people------------ Duh-------------and her foreign relations experience was her claim she was able to see Russia from Alaska:confused:

Just how far back do you think these two morons would have set back America if they had gotten elected?????????????? (Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12, or a person considered stupid)

Uncle Bill
12-27-2010, 11:19 AM
Roger Perry quote...

Just how far back do you think these two morons would have set back America if they had gotten elected?????????????? (Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12, or a person considered stupid)


Isn't it always the way...to call someone by the name you have been referred to frequently, but do it before they do...much like a child.

Each time you post, you remove all doubt as to how ignorant you are. You are as simple minded as any racist. Your mantra has been repeated so often, is it any wonder conservatives have no interest in even thinking you have a point to your drivel? You have become a POTUS BB joke.

It's quite telling you are worried now that GWB isn't in the spotlight anymore, you have no one to spew your hatred at...so you've decided to pick on Sarah Palin. Your hatred seems to know no boundries. But we already know that Roger, so all you do is continue to make yourself more of a hate racist with each post. As mongers go, you win first prize.

UB

Marvin S
12-27-2010, 11:20 AM
(Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12, or a person considered stupid)

RP - my definition of a moron would also have to include someone who can not read something & understand the subject matter in it's full context :o .

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 11:26 AM
Roger Perry Quote... Just how far back do you think these two morons would have set back America if they had gotten elected?????????????? (Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12, or a person considered stupid)[/color]

Just his war record alone should keep people from making comments like this, out of respect.
A moron can fly a jet fighter?
Your remarks about John McCain remind me of those college punks who wanted a statue of Pappy Boyington taken off campus because they considered him a murderer.
What's it take to get peoples respect? Better poll numbers??
Walt[/quote]

No, just someone who can show me intellegence enough to run a country which neither of these two people did. And by the way a moron can fly a jet plane G.W. Bush proved that.;)

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 11:29 AM
Roger Perry quote...

Just how far back do you think these two morons would have set back America if they had gotten elected?????????????? (Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12, or a person considered stupid)


Isn't it always the way...to call someone by the name you have been referred to frequently, but do it before they do...much like a child.

Each time you post, you remove all doubt as to how ignorant you are. You are as simple minded as any racist. Your mantra has been repeated so often, is it any wonder conservatives have no interest in even thinking you have a point to your drivel? You have become a POTUS BB joke.

It's quite telling you are worried now that GWB isn't in the spotlight anymore, you have no one to spew your hatred at...so you've decided to pick on Sarah Palin. Your hatred seems to know no boundries. But we already know that Roger, so all you do is continue to make yourself more of a hate racist with each post. As mongers go, you win first prize.

UB
Yes, UB Sarah Palin showed me how smart she was when she did the interviews. North Korea is our ally being her most recent one.:rolleyes:

Blackstone
12-27-2010, 11:31 AM
Just sayin....

I guess it was a blanket indictment of the people that commented. But, what was it an indictment of? I said that none of them felt the need to speak out against the racists that have aligned themselves with the Republican Party. Was I wrong?

ducknwork
12-27-2010, 11:35 AM
I guess it was a blanket indictment of the people that commented. But, what was it an indictment of? I said that none of them felt the need to speak out against the racists that have aligned themselves with the Republican Party. Was I wrong?

I'm getting my waders, because it's getting deep in here.

Blackstone, you are normally one of the more intelligent sounding posters here, so playing dumb doesn't suit you well...

Blackstone
12-27-2010, 11:35 AM
BTW, I don't appreciate being accused of being racist, or tolerating white on black racism. Although, I guess I wasn't included in the blanket statement since I am not a republican...

I wasn't aware I had accused you of anything. I wasn't aware you had even been apart of the discussion. Now, you interject yourself in the discussion by saying I accused you of being a racist. I did not. However, if you're feeling guilty about something . . . .

david gibson
12-27-2010, 11:36 AM
Yes, UB Sarah Palin showed me how smart she was when she did the interviews. North Korea is our ally being her most recent one.:rolleyes:

and that is a prime example of a simple misspeak and if you read the entire dialogue you would know that - but of course you just go with the quote the left takes out of context and dont bother to verify the facts.

so why do we have a moron of a president who thinks there are 58 states??????

mjh345
12-27-2010, 11:43 AM
and that is a prime example of a simple misspeak and if you read the entire dialogue you would know that - but of course you just go with the quote the left takes out of context and dont bother to verify the facts.

so why do we have a moron of a president who thinks there are 58 states??????

David, Speaking of mispeaks {and morons} I believe Obama mispoke & said 57, not 58 states

Blackstone
12-27-2010, 11:43 AM
I'm getting my waders, because it's getting deep in here.

Blackstone, you are normally one of the more intelligent sounding posters here, so playing dumb doesn't suit you well...

I'm not sure what you think I'm playing dumb about. Please clarify and I will be happy to address it. I don't really try to duck anything. And, if I'm proven wrong about something, I will admit my error.

Roger Perry
12-27-2010, 11:54 AM
and that is a prime example of a simple misspeak and if you read the entire dialogue you would know that - but of course you just go with the quote the left takes out of context and dont bother to verify the facts.

so why do we have a moron of a president who thinks there are 58 states??????

So when Republicans make mistakes they are either to have misspoken or are taken out of context. When a Democrat makes a mistake they are morons----------- got it.

And by the way, did you listen to any of the interviews Ms. Palin did with Katy Couric?????? Maybe you should go back and revisit them again. Here are links to some of the interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related

ducknwork
12-27-2010, 02:32 PM
David, Speaking of mispeaks {and morons} I believe Obama mispoke & said 57, not 58 states

57+1=58


"It is just wonderful to be back in Oregon. And over the last 15 months we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states; I think one left to go."

Don't you hate it when you correct someone and call them a moron, but your correction is actually wrong?:D

david gibson
12-27-2010, 02:48 PM
David, Speaking of mispeaks {and morons} I believe Obama mispoke & said 57, not 58 states

semantics - he said "we have been in like 57 states, i think we have one to go"

57 + 1 = 58. so in his mind he was thinking 58. and i know the defenders say he meant to say 47 with one to go to make a clean sweep of the mainland. doesnt matter - he said what he said.

otherwise - its somehow better to think there are 57 states instead of 58???:confused:

david gibson
12-27-2010, 02:52 PM
So when Republicans make mistakes they are either to have misspoken or are taken out of context. When a Democrat makes a mistake they are morons----------- got it.

And by the way, did you listen to any of the interviews Ms. Palin did with Katy Couric?????? Maybe you should go back and revisit them again. Here are links to some of the interviews.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrzXLYA_e6E&feature=related

you fail to get the point of my post, dont you? not surprised. i am not defending palin - just showing you an example where your guy made the same kind of mistake, therefore if palin is a moron for doing it so is obama. YOU used the term moron first. dont shoot the messenger dude, all i did was hold up the mirror in front of you.

Uncle Bill
12-28-2010, 10:24 AM
I donít know what it is like in the Bay area, but whichever side racism is coming from, itís still wrong. But, I can tell you, racism is still alive and well in much of this country. If youíre not seeing it, you need to get out more. You donít have to go down south to find it. In fact, in recent years, I have experienced less of it in the south than in other parts of the country.





Here's an "oldie-but-goody" concerning racism. How many came to the aid of 'Kramer', eh?

You PC types are as racist as any in the country, but you try to hide behind your bluster. You'd never admit Bush had far more Blacks on his cabinet than Obama. You chastise conservatives for their 'obvious' racism, but look away at a Jesse Jackson's comments about "hymie town". Who are the real hypocrites here?

I take pride in who I am, and would if any other color as well.

UB







Michael Richards better known as Kramer from TVs Seinfeld does make a good point.




This was his defense speech in court after making racial comments in his comedy act.

He makes some very interesting points...

Someone finally said it. How many are actually paying attention to this?

There are African Americans, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans, Arab Americans, etc.

And then there are just Americans.. You pass me on the street and sneer in my direction.

You call me 'White boy,' 'Cracker,' 'Honkey,' 'Whitey,' 'Caveman'... And that's OK...

But when I call you, Nigger, Kike, Towel head, Sand-nigger, Camel Jockey, Beaner, Gook, or Chink .. You call me a racist.

You say that whites commit a lot of violence against you....

So why are the ghettos the most dangerous places to live?

You have the United Negro College Fund. You have Martin Luther King Day.

You have Black History Month.

You have Cesar Chavez Day.

You have Yom Hashoah.

You have Ma'uled Al-Nabi.

You have the NAACP.

You have BET....

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.

If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Wonder who pays for that??

A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant.

If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..

Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

In the Million Man March, you believed that you were marching for your race and rights.

If we marched for our race and rights, you would call us racists.

You are proud to be black, brown, yellow and orange, and you're not afraid to announce it.

But when we announce our white pride, you call us racists.

You rob us, car jack us, and shoot at us.

But, when a white police officer shoots a black gang member or beats up a black drug dealer running from the law and posing a threat to society, you call him a racist.

I am proud...... But you call me a racist.

Why is it that only whites can be racists??

Julie R.
12-28-2010, 10:28 AM
So when Republicans make mistakes they are either to have misspoken or are taken out of context. When a Democrat makes a mistake they are morons----------- got it.

And by the way, did you listen to any of the interviews Ms. Palin did with Katy Couric?????? Maybe you should go back and revisit them again. Here are links to some of the interviews.


Roger, much as I hate to burst your balloon: Couric by her own admission interviewed Palin extensively but the network admitted to removing all semblance of intelligent discussions during editing and chose to include only those that made Palin look buffoonish. Which wasn't necessary, given that there wasn't a prayer a McCain-Anyone ticket could've won the 2008 election, hence the admission. Now, I'm no fan of either, although I knew and liked Katie Couric (she was my roommate when we were both students at UVA) but she plays hardball partisan politics armed with an editorial staff that fully backs her. Context, Roger...

Roger Perry
12-28-2010, 12:29 PM
semantics - he said "we have been in like 57 states, i think we have one to go"

57 + 1 = 58. so in his mind he was thinking 58. and i know the defenders say he meant to say 47 with one to go to make a clean sweep of the mainland. doesnt matter - he said what he said.

otherwise - its somehow better to think there are 57 states instead of 58???:confused:

Obama was not asked how many States does the U.S. have. He could have visited some States twice or as you said he could have meant to say 47 States but said 58 by mistake.;-) But how can you compare the few misstatements Obama or Biden has said to the number that Palin or Bush have sopken?

dnf777
12-28-2010, 12:42 PM
but the network admitted to removing all semblance of intelligent discussions during editing ...

So they removed, "hello, I'm Sarah Palin..."

Anything else? ;)

Roger Perry
12-28-2010, 01:02 PM
Roger Perry quote...

Just how far back do you think these two morons would have set back America if they had gotten elected?????????????? (Moron (psychology), disused term for a person with a mental age between 8 and 12, or a person considered stupid)


Isn't it always the way...to call someone by the name you have been referred to frequently, but do it before they do...much like a child.

Each time you post, you remove all doubt as to how ignorant you are. You are as simple minded as any racist. Your mantra has been repeated so often, is it any wonder conservatives have no interest in even thinking you have a point to your drivel? You have become a POTUS BB joke.

It's quite telling you are worried now that GWB isn't in the spotlight anymore, you have no one to spew your hatred at...so you've decided to pick on Sarah Palin. Your hatred seems to know no boundries. But we already know that Roger, so all you do is continue to make yourself more of a hate racist with each post. As mongers go, you win first prize.

UB

UB, I have no hatred toward Sarah Palin and I am not a racist I am saying however, that she is not qualified to be in either of the top two positions to run our Country especially to be one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States. However your compadres here seem to spew more hatred toward Obama with their daily posts. I don't know if it is because your guy did not get elected, or because Obama is a Democrat, is black, or both???????????????

ducknwork
12-28-2010, 01:06 PM
UB, I have no hatred toward Sarah Palin and I am not a racist I am saying however, that she is not qualified to be in either of the top two positions to run our Country especially to be one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States. However your compadres here seem to spew more hatred toward Obama with their daily posts. I don't know if it is because your guy did not get elected, or because Obama is a Democrat, is black, or both???????????????

I don't know what you have been reading, but I sure don't see anyone professing their hate for Obama. It seems as though we are able to seperate the man and his policies/actions (or lack of) pretty easily.

BTW, since you bring up qualifications, what made Obama more qualified to be Prez at the time of his election than Palin was to be VP at the time?

Why don't you chill with the racist accusations while you are at it?

Roger Perry
12-28-2010, 01:21 PM
I don't know what you have been reading, but I sure don't see anyone professing their hate for Obama. It seems as though we are able to seperate the man and his policies/actions (or lack of) pretty easily.

BTW, since you bring up qualifications, what made Obama more qualified to be Prez at the time of his election than Palin was to be VP at the time?

Why don't you chill with the racist accusations while you are at it?
Originally Posted by Roger Perry http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://new.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=724079#post724079)
UB, I have no hatred toward Sarah Palin and I am not a racist I am saying however, that she is not qualified to be in either of the top two positions to run our Country especially to be one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States. However your compadres here seem to spew more hatred toward Obama with their daily posts. I don't know if it is because your guy did not get elected, or because Obama is a Democrat, is black, or both???????????????
I don't know what you have been reading, but I sure don't see anyone professing their hate for Obama. It seems as though we are able to seperate the man and his policies/actions (or lack of) pretty easily.

BTW, since you bring up qualifications, what made Obama more qualified to be Prez at the time of his election than Palin was to be VP at the time?

Why don't you chill with the racist accusations while you are at it?
__________________


I was referring to hatred not racism. I was also to referred to by UB as a racist and I was commenting on that also.

road kill
12-28-2010, 02:03 PM
UB, I have no hatred toward Sarah Palin and I am not a racist I am saying however, that she is not qualified to be in either of the top two positions to run our Country especially to be one heartbeat away from being the President of the United States. However your compadres here seem to spew more hatred toward Obama with their daily posts. I don't know if it is because your guy did not get elected, or because Obama is a Democrat, is black, or both???????????????

I think it's because he is inexperienced and incompetent.:D

My issue with him is that he is from the south side of Chicago.
That's all I needed to know.


RK

Uncle Bill
12-28-2010, 03:32 PM
How profound, Roger: "I don't know if it is because your guy did not get elected, or because Obama is a Democrat, is black, or both???????????????


Fact is, if your messiah hadn't been Democrat, he'd NEVER gotten past the primary. If he hadn't been Black, HE NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO THE WH. If you feel that is racist, your are as ignorant as a stick.

Nothing could be more factual than those two statements.

UB

Blackstone
12-28-2010, 09:19 PM
You PC types are as racist as any in the country, but you try to hide behind your bluster.

Thatís a pretty strong accusation based on . . . . well, nothing. If you are going to accuse me of being a racist, post the proof. Show where I have made a racist statement about anyone or any group.


You'd never admit Bush had far more Blacks on his cabinet than Obama.

I never said anything about how many blacks Bush or Obama had in their cabinets. If Bush had more, that fine by me. However, I havenít really been keeping count. Being black or white should not be a qualification or a disqualifier for being in the Presidentís cabinet. Why are you concerned with who had the most blacks?


You chastise conservatives for their 'obvious' racism, but look away at a Jesse Jackson's comments about "hymie town". Who are the real hypocrites here?

I never mentioned anything about conservatives. Where did you get that statement from?

And, since you mention it, I actually did mention on this board that I thought Jesse Jackson was a racist because of his ďhymie townĒ comment. So, I guess Iím not as hypocritical as you think.


Here's an "oldie-but-goody" concerning racism. How many came to the aid of 'Kramer', eh?

Why would or why should anyone come to Michael Richards aid? He said what he said. Itís not like you could misinterpret the meaning of his comments.

As far as the rest of what you attributed to Michael Richards, he never went to court over the incident, so he never said any of that crap. Thatís just one of those internet rumors started by someone with an axe to grind. Most of it is distortions of the facts anyway. I have addressed some of them in the past, so I wonít bother to do it again (unless you need them explained to you). Itís too bad you bought into it. Obviously, it speaks to your personal feelings on some level. Maybe itís not me that is ďas racist as any in the country.Ē

Blackstone
12-28-2010, 09:38 PM
Fact is, if your messiah hadn't been Democrat, he'd NEVER gotten past the primary.

Am I missing something. Can you be something other than a Democrat and run in a Democratic Primary?


If he hadn't been Black, HE NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO THE WH.

Or, he got there in spite of it.


Nothing could be more factual than those two statements.

Just because you say something is factual doesnít make it so. Whereís your proof.

Uncle Bill
12-29-2010, 03:48 PM
There was a time you had some intelligence, or phonied up a few posts making us think you had. Now you are just another liberal toady seeking some respect from those you despise.

What a joke you have become. Next time someone tells you it's raining outside, but they didn't produce any "FACTS" for your approval, I look forward to hearing you got drenched.

How about if I proffer the idea you have a nose on your face, would you require proof of that as well, or aren't you quite that much of an ignoramus?

Probably not! Just your basic JACK WAGON.

As to your 'observation' concerning my first statement...

" Am I missing something. Can you be something other than a Democrat and run in a Democratic Primary?"

Yes, you are missing something. Only the party of the jackasses would run someone so ill equiped, pathetically unqualified, and horribly egotistical as BH Obama. Only a batch of Chris Matthew's wannabes would feel that tingle run down their leg to vote for this man-child.

Next time you question statements as obvious as the nose on your face by seeking 'proof', read the comment a second time, so you aren't wiping egg off your face for having the entire point sail over your head.

UB

dnf777
12-29-2010, 04:34 PM
There was a time you had some intelligence, or phonied up a few posts making us think you had.

What a joke you have become.

or aren't you quite that much of an ignoramus?

Just your basic JACK WAGON.



UB


I don't know what drives your meaness.
I'll speak for myself, but this is NOT the kind of political debate I thought this room was about.

Most of us have had our buttons pushed and responded in unkind ways, but you seem to strike out unprovoked, almost thriving on trying to insult others for expressing their opinions.

Chill out man.

Marvin S
12-29-2010, 05:57 PM
I don't know what drives your meaness.
I'll speak for myself, but this is NOT the kind of political debate I thought this room was about.

Most of us have had our buttons pushed and responded in unkind ways, but you seem to strike out unprovoked, almost thriving on trying to insult others for expressing their opinions.

Chill out man.

What kind of debate would suit you? UB made a fairly obvious statement based on what most sensible working citizens saw. BS chose to counter that with some canned PC type response. UB chose to call BS's BS BS, what is wrong with that?

I'm not sure one should be on this forum, or even the main one if their skin is thin. It creates great entertainment running someone home crying, we are a competitive lot ;-).

dnf777
12-29-2010, 06:01 PM
What kind of debate would suit you? UB made a fairly obvious statement based on what most sensible working citizens saw. BS chose to counter that with some canned PC type response. UB chose to call BS's BS BS, what is wrong with that? Nothing, but why all the insults and name calling? Just not productive to meaningful discussion.

I'm not sure one should be on this forum, or even the main one if their skin is thin. It creates great entertainment running someone home crying, we are a competitive lot ;-).

Sure. You and I have locked horns before, but have toned things down to a civil level. Its much more productive to exchange ideas, rather than name calling, eh? And sure, things get ramped up a bit, sometimes the janitor even has to dump cold water on the dogs, but I don't recall anyone being so quick to demean and ridicule someone for posting their thoughts...even if they think they're BS.

Blackstone
12-29-2010, 06:10 PM
There was a time you had some intelligence, or phonied up a few posts making us think you had. Now you are just another liberal toady seeking some respect from those you despise.

What a joke you have become. Next time someone tells you it's raining outside, but they didn't produce any "FACTS" for your approval, I look forward to hearing you got drenched.

How about if I proffer the idea you have a nose on your face, would you require proof of that as well, or aren't you quite that much of an ignoramus?

Probably not! Just your basic JACK WAGON.

As to your 'observation' concerning my first statement...

" Am I missing something. Can you be something other than a Democrat and run in a Democratic Primary?"

Yes, you are missing something. Only the party of the jackasses would run someone so ill equiped, pathetically unqualified, and horribly egotistical as BH Obama. Only a batch of Chris Matthew's wannabes would feel that tingle run down their leg to vote for this man-child.

Next time you question statements as obvious as the nose on your face by seeking 'proof', read the comment a second time, so you aren't wiping egg off your face for having the entire point sail over your head.

UB

When you have no valid points to offer, and no proof to back your accusations, you turn to childish name calling. Still, none of the venom you spew in your rants lend any credibility to what you say. However, I can understand your frustration, considering how often you are proven wrong, just like you were with that Michael Richards crap you posted. If anyone should be wiping egg off their face, it should be you.

When you identified me as an ignoramus, jack wagon and whatever else you felt it necessary to call me, are you sure you weren’t simply passing a mirror? Let’s face it, Uncle Bill, you’re just a mean, bitter person with little, if anything, rational and intelligent to offer.

david gibson
12-29-2010, 06:55 PM
When you have no valid points to offer, and no proof to back your accusations, you turn to childish name calling. Still, none of the venom you spew in your rants lend any credibility to what you say. However, I can understand your frustration, considering how often you are proven wrong, just like you were with that Michael Richards crap you posted. If anyone should be wiping egg off their face, it should be you.

When you identified me as an ignoramus, jack wagon and whatever else you felt it necessary to call me, are you sure you weren’t simply passing a mirror? Let’s face it, Uncle Bill, you’re just a mean, bitter person with little, if anything, rational and intelligent to offer.

awwwwww...one big happy family! group hug!!!

so blackstone, exactly what parts of post #53 do you think are incorrect?

Blackstone
12-29-2010, 07:14 PM
What kind of debate would suit you? UB made a fairly obvious statement based on what most sensible working citizens saw. BS chose to counter that with some canned PC type response. UB chose to call BS's BS BS, what is wrong with that?

I'm not sure one should be on this forum, or even the main one if their skin is thin. It creates great entertainment running someone home crying, we are a competitive lot ;-).

Iím not sure how you can equate UB with sensible people, but okay.
However, if you donít see anything wrong with UBís behavior, it makes me wonder about your sensibility.

Blackstone
12-29-2010, 07:17 PM
awwwwww...one big happy family! group hug!!!

so blackstone, exactly what parts of post #53 do you think are incorrect?

Read post # 62.

david gibson
12-29-2010, 07:50 PM
Read post # 62.

ok, since you avoided my question or failed to apply basic reading comprehension skills, i will present it more clearly. exactly which of the following do you agree or disagree with, or do you think it is right or wrong?

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant,a nd if we had a White MAP we would be racist.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..
Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

i'll add another - here in houston we have black police and firefighters associations, why no white firefighters association?

so is the answer that only the demographic group in the minority can have specialized groupings? i am not saying it is right or wrong, just a question to help answer this.

Marvin S
12-29-2010, 09:41 PM
Sure. You and I have locked horns before, but have toned things down to a civil level. Its much more productive to exchange ideas, rather than name calling, eh? And sure, things get ramped up a bit, sometimes the janitor even has to dump cold water on the dogs, but I don't recall anyone being so quick to demean and ridicule someone for posting their thoughts...even if they think they're BS.

Look at it this way, every one has a style for expression. UB's is abrupt, sort of like a 2 x 4 about the head at times. I find that refreshing, but I also notice you to be quick to try & make an issue of that. As for toning things down, I save my sharper retorts for those I believe are not beyond help, hence the softening of my approach to you Doc :-P.


Iím not sure how you can equate UB with sensible people, but okay.
However, if you donít see anything wrong with UBís behavior, it makes me wonder about your sensibility.

I've tried to frame a few comments toward yourself so you could possibly recognize your supposed issue was both off base & not unique to yourself or your nationality. Somehow you are so locked in on the issue that you fail to recognize that, but I'll now be a little more direct.

My parents were both drunks, I lived with my GP's until I was 12. When I was sent to my relatives during that time my ration coupons were more valuable than my presence. By the time I was 15 I was on my own & worked my way through HS milking cows for R & B & a little spending money. Fortunately I was a little bright & a fairly good athlete so ended up at a school in the NCC with an Indian as a roommate. He was a nice guy, we got along well & on Saturday night I would go buy a case or so of beer & we would drink it in the dorm. Indian's weren't allowed to drink in SD at that time. We were good friends & I respected him for what he was as a person. BTW, this was 1950 & the American Indian has probably gotten a rawer deal than any minority in this country, & if we told them to go home, they are already there :eek:.

Later, after getting my Engr. degree I was a supervisor in a mine. When it came time to go on vacation I picked the best man on my crew to take my spot. He was a Mexican & again a person most of us would have been happy to call a friend. My bosses were not happy with my decision but chose not to make an issue of it. What really made them unhappy was that he ran the crew as well or better than I did. While they never got over that, it did lead to him getting into a trade that benefitted him long term. When I contract mined, I was the only caucasian on our crew & we routinely topped the board, a big deal both monetarily & man wise. My partner & I used to do the Mexican bars, it's a tough bunch but I was accepted, never had to do the knife thing, they are good with them :).

When I was a lead Engineer at the big kite factory I had a person of your nationality assigned to my group. Knowing the mechanics were both long in experience & somewhat redneck, I explained to XXX that he might run into some of this as even I had when I had first come out to this assignment. XXX looked at me as if I had said something wrong, but then thanked me for recognizing he was there to work & would be treated the same as everyone who worked for me. He said he had been the token minority for 2 of those companies you so aptly described as getting it :-P, & it was quite demeaning besides being a waste of his education. He went on to be someone the mechanics came to see to get there problems worked.

Anyway enough of that, I only reposted the post you found offensive to make you realize no one really respects a whiner, & that is what you have proven to be on this thread. We've all had our issues at one time in our life or another, the longer you commiserate about it, the longer it will create bile in your gullet. The guy you are defending only got there because he has never been in a real political contest, but what he has done is set the bar much higher for someone of your race to aspire to the top job by his utter lack of POTUS credentials & his actions in office.

& don't worry about the R's, looks like they have some sensible thinking minorities glad to carry the banner.


UB chose to call BS's BS BS, what is wrong with that?

I'm not sure one should be on this forum, or even the main one if their skin is thin. It creates great entertainment running someone home crying, we are a competitive lot ;-).

dnf777
12-30-2010, 08:17 AM
I save my sharper retorts for those I believe are not beyond help, hence the softening of my approach to you Doc :-P. [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

.

Likewise. Its like when I visit the state sanitarium to see patients. I go easy on them, and let them think they're right about everything. :D

It's worked well here, too! ;)

road kill
12-30-2010, 08:19 AM
Likewise. Its like when I visit the state sanitarium to see patients. I go easy on them, and let them think they're right about everything. :D

It's worked well here, too! ;)

Little different here, you PROVE us correct!!:shock:

Just sayin'.....


RK

dnf777
12-30-2010, 09:06 AM
Little different here, you PROVE us correct!!:shock:

Just sayin'.....


RK



Sure. Ok. Whatever you say....
You'll be just fine....

luvmylabs23139
12-30-2010, 09:30 AM
ok, since you avoided my question or failed to apply basic reading comprehension skills, i will present it more clearly. exactly which of the following do you agree or disagree with, or do you think it is right or wrong?

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant,a nd if we had a White MAP we would be racist.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..
Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

i'll add another - here in houston we have black police and firefighters associations, why no white firefighters association?

so is the answer that only the demographic group in the minority can have specialized groupings? i am not saying it is right or wrong, just a question to help answer this.

I would really like all the liberals or "independents" to explain why these organizations can exist but the "other" ones would be wrong. I have questioned this for years.
Explain another one. Why have many companies and state and local gov'ts taken away Presidents day as a holiday and replaced it with MLK day?
I mean is that guy really more important to the entire population than honoring all of everyones' Presidents?

Roger Perry
12-30-2010, 11:06 AM
How profound, Roger: "I don't know if it is because your guy did not get elected, or because Obama is a Democrat, is black, or both???????????????


Fact is, if your messiah hadn't been Democrat, he'd NEVER gotten past the primary. If he hadn't been Black, HE NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN INTO THE WH. If you feel that is racist, your are as ignorant as a stick.

Nothing could be more factual than those two statements.

UB

One of the reasons Obama was elected is because Republicans crossed party lines to vote for him.

United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) Barack Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama), a member of the Democratic Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)), was endorsed or supported by some members of the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)) and by some political figures holding conservative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative) views in the 2008 election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008). Republican and conservative Obama supporters were often referred to as "Obama Republicans", "Obamacans" or "Obamacons".[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican#cite_note-Feb12-0)
Republican and conservative supporters of Obama included elected officials, former elected officials, academics, commentators, and retired military officers. According to exit polls on Election Day, 9% of those who identified themselves as Republicans voted for Barack Obama,[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican#cite_note-1) up slightly from the 6% of self-identified Republicans who voted for John Kerry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry) in 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004).[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican#cite_note-2)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_Republican

Roger Perry
12-30-2010, 02:58 PM
I would really like all the liberals or "independents" to explain why these organizations can exist but the "other" ones would be wrong. I have questioned this for years.
Explain another one. Why have many companies and state and local gov'ts taken away Presidents day as a holiday and replaced it with MLK day?
I mean is that guy really more important to the entire population than honoring all of everyones' Presidents?

Presidents day was never taken away. It is a combination of Lincoln's (Feb 12 and Washington's ( Feb 21 )birthdays which used to be celebrated individually. Presidents day is still a Federal holliday.
When is Presidents' Day in 2011?


Presidents' Day in 2011 is on Monday, the 21st of February.
In the United States, Presidents Day is always celebrated on the third Monday of February.


Friday, December 31, 2010*New Year’s DayMonday, January 17Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.Monday, February 21**Washington’s BirthdayMonday, May 30Memorial DayMonday, July 4Independence DayMonday, September 5Labor DayMonday, October 10Columbus DayFriday, November 11Veterans DayThursday, November 24Thanksgiving DayMonday, December 26***Christmas Day
* January 1, 2011 (the legal public holiday for New Year’s

luvmylabs23139
12-30-2010, 03:08 PM
Presidents day was never taken away. It is a combination of Lincoln's (Feb 12 and Washington's ( Feb 21 )birthdays which used to be celebrated individually. Presidents day is still a Federal holliday.
When is Presidents' Day in 2011?


Presidents' Day in 2011 is on Monday, the 21st of February.
In the United States, Presidents Day is always celebrated on the third Monday of February.


Friday, December 31, 2010*New Yearís DayMonday, January 17Birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr.Monday, February 21**Washingtonís BirthdayMonday, May 30Memorial DayMonday, July 4Independence DayMonday, September 5Labor DayMonday, October 10Columbus DayFriday, November 11Veterans DayThursday, November 24Thanksgiving DayMonday, December 26***Christmas Day
* January 1, 2011 (the legal public holiday for New Yearís

I said STATE, LOCAL, and BUSINESS"S not the feds.

Example:

2011 N.C. State Government Holiday Schedule

2011 HOLIDAYS
DAY(S) OF WEEK
DATE(S)
New Year's Day
Friday
December 31, 2010
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Monday
January 17, 2011
Good Friday
Friday
April 22, 2011
Memorial Day
Monday
May 30, 2011
Independence Day
Monday
July 4, 2011
Labor Day
Monday
September 5, 2011
Veterans Day
Friday
November 11, 2011
Thanksgiving
Thursday and Friday
November 24 and 25, 2011
Christmas
Monday and Tuesday
December 26 and 27, 2011

Roger Perry
12-30-2010, 03:14 PM
I said STATE, LOCAL, and BUSINESS"S not the feds.

Example:

2011 N.C. State Government Holiday Schedule

2011 HOLIDAYS

DAY(S) OF WEEK
DATE(S)



New Year's Day
Friday

December 31, 2010



Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Monday

January 17, 2011



Good Friday
Friday

April 22, 2011



Memorial Day
Monday

May 30, 2011



Independence Day
Monday

July 4, 2011



Labor Day
Monday

September 5, 2011



Veterans Day
Friday

November 11, 2011



Thanksgiving
Thursday and Friday

November 24 and 25, 2011



Christmas
Monday and Tuesday

December 26 and 27, 2011




North Carolina Legal Holidays


ß 103-4. Dates of public holidays
(a) The following are declared to be legal public holidays:
(1) New Yearís Day, January 1.
(1a) Martin Luther King, Jr.ís, Birthday, the third Monday in January.
(2) Robert E. Leeís Birthday, January 19.
(3) Washingtonís Birthday, the third Monday in February.
(3a) Greek Independence Day, March 25.
(4) Anniversary of signing of Halifax Resolves, April 12.
(5) Confederate Memorial Day, May 10.
(6) Anniversary of Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, May 20.
(7) Memorial Day, the last Monday in May.
(8) Good Friday.
(9) Independence Day, July 4.
(10) Labor Day, the first Monday in September.
(11) Columbus Day, the second Monday in October.
(11a) Yom Kippur.
(12) Veterans Day, November 11.
(13) Tuesday after the first Monday in November in years in which a general election is to be held.
(14) Thanksgiving Day, the fourth Thursday in November.
(15) Christmas Day, December 25.
(b) Whenever any public holiday shall fall upon Sunday, the Monday following shall be a public holiday.
N.C. Gen. Stat. ß 103-4

luvmylabs23139
12-30-2010, 03:18 PM
Look at the list of paid days off for holidays not some legal holiday. In other words MLK day is a paid day off but a person has to work on Presidents day. Lets be real, people count holidays as paid days off, days off school, and such not some obsure legislation.

david gibson
12-30-2010, 04:36 PM
ok, since you avoided my question or failed to apply basic reading comprehension skills, i will present it more clearly. exactly which of the following do you agree or disagree with, or do you think it is right or wrong?

If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.
If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.
If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.
If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.
We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.
A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant,a nd if we had a White MAP we would be racist.
If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.
There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US ..
Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

i'll add another - here in houston we have black police and firefighters associations, why no white firefighters association?

so is the answer that only the demographic group in the minority can have specialized groupings? i am not saying it is right or wrong, just a question to help answer this.

blackiestonie?

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-30-2010, 08:29 PM
blackiestonie?

David,

NO ONE is gonna touch that one.....

Being in the FS, I really love the BFFU...I damn near got run out for thinking I was gonna attend a meeting.

Silly rabbit what was I thinking....

Here is the response I got from someone when I posed the same question...."You dont need those groups, beacuse white people have been running things in this country since its begining"

This was said to me by a hispanic woman, and when I heard it as her answer, I just bowed my head, smiled and walked away...

Equality for all....:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


NCA

Blackstone
12-31-2010, 03:13 AM
blackiestonie?

David,

I apologize for taking so long to respond. I have been hunting, training my dogs, and doing things I enjoy. Responding to you just really wasn’t that high on my list.


ok, since you avoided my question or failed to apply basic reading comprehension skills, i will present it more clearly. exactly which of the following do you agree or disagree with, or do you think it is right or wrong?

I didn’t avoid your question. I just told you to read the answer for yourself. What I found incorrect was that the statements were attributed to Michael Richards. He never said them. If you had read the last paragraph of post # 62, you would have understood that, unless, of course, you failed to apply basic reading comprehension skills.

The comments made in that contrived statement was a different matter. Although there is a semblance of truth in them, attempting to make them seem racist by presenting them outside the context of events and circumstances that led to their creation, is disingenuous at best. The fact is, most of the organizations and events listed were formed in response to minorities being excluded from mainstream America. You should realize that, but for some reason you feel a need for me to comment on them. I would say I don’t understand that, but actually, I do. So, just for you, this time, I will.


If we had WET (White Entertainment Television), we'd be racists.

BET was formed as a business venture to reach black consumers by offering programming and advertising directed toward the interests of the black community. When BET was founded, this type of programming and advertising was absent, or at least very limited on traditional networks. Advertisers such as Sears, Pepsi & Anheuser Busch jumped at the chance to buy air time for the chance to more effectively reach black consumers. Founder Robert Johnson told Forbes: "The idea for BET was not conceived out of idealism, but as a business opportunity that had been ignored." Traditional and cable networks already offered programming and advertising directed at the white community. They could have reached out to black viewers and consumers in the same, but they chose not to. Maybe Mr. Johnson could have chosen a more PC name, like “Urban Entertainment Television,” but that shouldn’t bother those that don’t believe in being PC.


If we had a White Pride Day, you would call us racists.

There are a lot of ethnic pride days celebrated around the country including, Italian Pride Day, Armenian Pride Day & St. Patrick’s Day (Irish Pride Day). In 1983, Reagan proclaimed Oct. 6th as German American Day. All of those ethnic groups are white, and no one is accusing them of racism.

I’m sure there are Black Pride Days celebrated around the country, but I’m not aware of them. However, I know there’s a Gay Pride Day. If you’re feeling left out of the ethnic pride days, I’m sure they would be happy to have you celebrate with them.


If we had White History Month, we'd be racists.

Every month was White History Month when I was in school (elementary – high school). History about whites was about the only American history taught. There were a few paragraphs about blacks & Native Americans, but that is about it. Otherwise, the history of blacks and other minorities in this country was conspicuously omitted from history classes, books, historical accounts, and TV. Black History Month came about in response to that omission, and was intended to highlight the history and contributions of blacks in this country. Black history is just a part of American history, and if it had been taught in schools and disseminated to mainstream America, there wouldn’t have been a Black History Month.


If we had any organization for only whites to 'advance' OUR lives, we'd be racists.

The NAACP is not for blacks only. There have always been white members. some of the founding members were white, and until 1975 all the Presidents were white. The catalysts that prompted the formation of the NAACP were the continuing horrific practice of lynching blacks, and the 1908 race riot in Springfield, IL, during which a white mob burned black homes and business in the black section of Springfield, and killed at least 2 blacks. No whites were ever prosecuted or even arrested for those murders. Realizing this type of violence against blacks and a lack of justice was common throughout the country, especially in the south, the NAACP was formed with a goal of addressing oppression, exclusion, persecution, disfranchisement of, and violence against, blacks. Their purpose was to ensure political, educational, social, and economic equality, and to increase opportunities for blacks in American society. If blacks hadn’t been facing such abhorrent conditions, the NAACP would have never been formed. That being said, the Mission Statement of the NAACP is not exclusive. It’s mission is to “ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate race-based discrimination.”


We have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, a Black Chamber of Commerce, and then we just have the plain Chamber of Commerce.

Ethnic Chamber of Commerce were formed because the “plain Chamber of Commerce,” in failed to address the needs of ethnic business communities. They formed their own Chamber of Commerce to better create, promote and develop economic opportunities for ethnic markets and businesses. And, by the way, there are German, Irish, Italian, and other white Chamber of Commerce groups in cities around the country. I guess the “plain Chamber of Commerce” wasn’t good enough for them either.


A white woman could not be in the Miss Black American pageant, but any color can be in the Miss America pageant,a nd if we had a White MAP we would be racist.

The Miss America Pageant was originally a white only pageant. Non-white women were barred from competing by a restriction in the pageant's "Rule # 7," which stated, "contestants must be of good health and of the white race." Until the mid-1940s, contestants were required to complete a biological questionnaire tracing their ancestry to prove they were white. As a result, no black woman competed in the Miss America pageant until 1970.

In response to the exclusion of black women from the pageant, blacks formed their own pageant organization to offer scholarships to the winners. If the Miss America Pageant had allowed black women to enter and compete, there never would have been a Miss Black America Pageant.


If we had a college fund that only gave white students scholarships... You know we'd be racists.

I disagree. There are dozens of organizations that only give scholarships to whites. There are scholarships only for Italian Americans, Polish Americans, Irish Americans, German Americans, etc. Almost every ethnicity has its own scholarship funds. I haven’t heard anyone accuse any of them of racism.


There are over 60 openly proclaimed Black Colleges in the US .. Yet if there were 'White colleges', that would be a racist college.

Historically Black Colleges were formed in response to the exclusion of blacks from enrollment in historically white colleges. In 1863, the Morrill Act provided for land grant colleges in each state. However, at least 17 states refused to allow blacks to enroll in their state’s land grant college. In response, a second Morrill Act was passed that required states to establish a separate land grant college for blacks if blacks were going to be excluded from the existing land grant college. Those separate land grant colleges became the historically black colleges. So, it was actually whites that established historically black colleges as a way of continuing to exclude blacks from enrolling in historically white colleges. However, unlike historically white colleges, whites have never been denied enrollment in historically black colleges. They were only called historically black colleges because they were the majority of those enrolled at the time. However, some historically black colleges now have non-black majorities, and a few, have white majorities.


i'll add another - here in houston we have black police and firefighters associations, why no white firefighters association?

Blacks were not allowed in the Houston Fire Department until late 1955, and until 1965 fire houses were still segregated. Black Firefighters could not work, or even fill in, at white stations. There were only 3 fire houses where Blacks were allowed to work, thereby significantly limiting the number of black fire fighters that would be hired. After the firehouses were integrated, Black firemen still faced significant racial prejudice in hiring, promotion and treatment. As a result, Black firemen eventually formed a Black Firefighter’s Association to help them address the unique concerns and problems that black firefighters faced. So, in effect, the Houston Fire Department was the white firefighters association. It was dedicated to the interests of white firefighters, but excluded non-white firefighters.

I hope this sufficiently addresses your questions.

Blackstone
12-31-2010, 03:17 AM
David,

NO ONE is gonna touch that one.....

Sorry to disappoint you. ;-)

david gibson
12-31-2010, 05:50 AM
BS: impressive amount of research, i can see the last few days of your life were spent doing a bit more than just hunting and dog training. good you got some in though, we had a 3+" rain event which puts training at my spots on hold a few days.

as far as post 62 addressed to UB: i have no issue with reading comprehension, i just wanted to hear your take on those questions, nothing more. no hidden agenda, thanks for responding honestly as opposed to an outright barrage of attacks as others would. i snopsed that diatribe over a year ago when i got it as email spam and dismissed the vast majority of it. you'll notice the more blatantly idiotic questions were omitted, purposefully, because their lack of merit stands on their own, or falls actually. i asked only you those questions because no one else here could answer them from the same viewpoint.

however, i do disagree with your lumping all the various anglo ethnic groups into the one category of "white" and using that as an example of the "white" interest group as a whole. that wasnt the point.

and the argument that before everything was already the "white this or that" doesnt fully convince me either. your well researched response addresses only the reasons the various "black" organizations evolved or were developed. that was not the point of the question, the point was that it would be racist now or anytime in the future to have ONE special interest group representing all the anglo groups as a whole. if you think it is just fine because you can split the anglo groups up, then why dont we hear about a black kid being shot by an irish-american cop instead of white?

out of curiosity, how long until a "white NBA players association" or a "white NFL players association" would be acceptable?

the answer on black colleges and the NAACP was spot on btw. i should have cut them too but i was lazy on the cut and paste, but in retrospect i imagine some people here may have benefited from those facts. the only issue i have is although you are correct in why and how the NCAAP was founded, i think you will agree it has veered away from that original intent. somehow i dont see them coming to the aid of an irish or italian american group today, at least not as long as jackson and sharpton are around.

luvmylabs23139
12-31-2010, 09:25 AM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain why MLK day replaced Presidents' day as a PAID holiday in many states, locals, and businesses. I mean what the heck do I care about MLK day. Presidents's day is for everyone. This is a serious question from someone who immigrated here LEGALLY as a child. I really do not understand why a day is important to all Americans has been taken away and replaced by a day that means very little to the MAJORITY of the population.
WHY is MLK more important than George Washington????????
If not for GW this country would not exist as an independent nation.

dnf777
12-31-2010, 10:02 AM
If not for GW this country would not exist as an independent nation.



You must live the life of leisure if you have nothing more to worry about than the renaming of President's Day!

To me, it just meant that Sears sales flyers have different banners on them??

luvmylabs23139
12-31-2010, 10:24 AM
You must live the life of leisure if you have nothing more to worry about than the renaming of President's Day!

To me, it just meant that Sears sales flyers have different banners on them??

Explain the "renaming of Presidents' day? When I was a kid we had GW's birthday and AL's birthday as seperate holidays. Then it was changed to one Paid holiday or day off of school to cover all presidents. No big deal.
MY issue is why has Presidents' day been taken away as a paid holiday and replaced with MLK day. HE was not a President and has no real meaning to the majority of the population vs honoring all of the US Presidents.
I mean really.:confused::confused:

dnf777
12-31-2010, 10:40 AM
Explain the "renaming of Presidents' day? When I was a kid we had GW's birthday and AL's birthday as seperate holidays. Then it was changed to one Paid holiday or day off of school to cover all presidents. No big deal.
MY issue is why has Presidents' day been taken away as a paid holiday and replaced with MLK day. HE was not a President and has no real meaning to the majority of the population vs honoring all of the US Presidents.
I mean really.:confused::confused:

I can't explain it, since I wasn't the one who changed it.

I'd rather it be called "Man's best friend Day", and we could all take a paid day off, and spend it with our dogs outside.

That's about the extent of energy I'm willing to spend on this topic. :D

luvmylabs23139
12-31-2010, 10:50 AM
I
I'd rather it be called "Man's best friend Day", and we could all take a paid day off, and spend it with our dogs outside.



That's exactly how we spend the majority of our "holidays". Even tonight will also be a dog evening. Our good friends are coming to celebrate the New Year with their 3 collies. So we will have 4 humans and 7 canines all ringing in the New Year together!:p

Nor_Cal_Angler
12-31-2010, 10:51 AM
Sorry to disappoint you. ;-)


AHHH you didn't, you did exactly what most people that lack the stones to admit someting do...

You did an awful good job of explaining why ethnic groups have there special place and group or event or day...but you did NOT answer the question(s).

WOULD WE AS WHITES BE LABLED RACISIT IF....

You didnt touch it...let alone with a 10' pole. That was alot of research and typing to do to answer that SIMPLE QUESTION.

NCA


BS: impressive amount of research, i can see the last few days of your life were spent doing a bit more than just hunting and dog training. good you got some in though, we had a 3+" rain event which puts training at my spots on hold a few days.

as far as post 62 addressed to UB: i have no issue with reading comprehension, i just wanted to hear your take on those questions, nothing more. no hidden agenda, thanks for responding honestly as opposed to an outright barrage of attacks as others would. i snopsed that diatribe over a year ago when i got it as email spam and dismissed the vast majority of it. you'll notice the more blatantly idiotic questions were omitted, purposefully, because their lack of merit stands on their own, or falls actually. i asked only you those questions because no one else here could answer them from the same viewpoint.

however, i do disagree with your lumping all the various anglo ethnic groups into the one category of "white" and using that as an example of the "white" interest group as a whole. that wasnt the point.

and the argument that before everything was already the "white this or that" doesnt fully convince me either. your well researched response addresses only the reasons the various "black" organizations evolved or were developed. that was not the point of the question, the point was that it would be racist now or anytime in the future to have ONE special interest group representing all the anglo groups as a whole. if you think it is just fine because you can split the anglo groups up, then why dont we hear about a black kid being shot by an irish-american cop instead of white?

out of curiosity, how long until a "white NBA players association" or a "white NFL players association" would be acceptable?

the answer on black colleges and the NAACP was spot on btw. i should have cut them too but i was lazy on the cut and paste, but in retrospect i imagine some people here may have benefited from those facts. the only issue i have is although you are correct in why and how the NCAAP was founded, i think you will agree it has veered away from that original intent. somehow i dont see them coming to the aid of an irish or italian american group today, at least not as long as jackson and sharpton are around.


After reading Blackstones response....those two bolded portions kept comming to mind...man he did a lot of research and posted some great reasons for the creation of minority groups, councils, colliations pride days, etc etc, but he just doesnt asnswer the questions.....

NCA

BonMallari
12-31-2010, 10:52 AM
Explain the "renaming of Presidents' day? When I was a kid we had GW's birthday and AL's birthday as seperate holidays. Then it was changed to one Paid holiday or day off of school to cover all presidents. No big deal.
MY issue is why has Presidents' day been taken away as a paid holiday and replaced with MLK day. HE was not a President and has no real meaning to the majority of the population vs honoring all of the US Presidents.
I mean really.:confused::confused:

would you like the politically correct explanation,or the POTUS interpretation

luvmylabs23139
12-31-2010, 11:02 AM
would you like the politically correct explanation,or the POTUS interpretation
I'd like to know why MLK is more important to the entire population of the US than all of the US Presidents combined. I have yet to here any explanation of that. I am truly confused as I am a first generation immigrant.

Blackstone
12-31-2010, 06:48 PM
BS: impressive amount of research, i can see the last few days of your life were spent doing a bit more than just hunting and dog training. good you got some in though, we had a 3+" rain event which puts training at my spots on hold a few days.

Hope you dry out soon so you can get back to training. Weather here has been almost too ideal here the last couple of weeks. Temps have been low to mid 40s. Yesterday it was 65 degrees & sunny. A little warm for hunting, but perfect for training. But, the bottom fell out today. It turned cold. Temps dropped about 30 degrees, and itís going to continue to drop to 9 degrees tonight.


however, i do disagree with your lumping all the various anglo ethnic groups into the one category of "white" and using that as an example of the "white" interest group as a whole. that wasnt the point.

I donít know how else I can represent them. Donít they consider themselves to be white? When there was Jim Crow segregation in the south, they were lumped into one group. If you were white, you could stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, run for political office, and go places that were off limits to blacks. They werenít restricted by anglo ethnic group. There are still segregated country clubs that you can join if you are white, without regard to anglo ethnicity. Many whites in this country closely associated themselves with the ethnicity of their ancestors, yet still benefited from being lumped in the ďwhiteĒ category.

For most blacks in this country, ethnic identity was stripped from them by slavery. Most blacks have no idea, and no way of finding out, where on the African continent their ancestors came from. Therefore, they all just get lumped into the general category of black or African American. If they could split into more specific ethnic groups, Iím sure they would. There are certain black ethnic groups, like Ethiopian Americans, Liberian Americans, Jamaican Americans & Nigerian Americans that have their own organizations to address the interests of their communities. However, they are all still considered to be black.


and the argument that before everything was already the "white this or that" doesnt fully convince me either. your well researched response addresses only the reasons the various "black" organizations evolved or were developed. that was not the point of the question, the point was that it would be racist now or anytime in the future to have ONE special interest group representing all the anglo groups as a whole. if you think it is just fine because you can split the anglo groups up, then why dont we hear about a black kid being shot by an irish-american cop instead of white?

It probably would be considered racist now. Most of the black organizations cited were founded decades ago to address societal injustices commonly perpetrated against the black community at the time. So, I think you would have to ask yourself what would be the motive behind forming a special interest group representing whites only. They arenít being discriminated against. They arenít being denied economic or social opportunities, so what would they be trying to accomplish? The answer to that question would determine whether or not they were considered racist.

I wasnít quite sure about your point with the Irish American cop, but if the fact that the cop was Irish American was germane to the story, Iím sure it would be mentioned. If not, it probably wouldnít be mentioned. If a Jamaican American black cop or Cuban American Hispanic cop killed a white kid, I donít think they would bother to include their Jamaican or Cuban ethnicity in the story unless it was relevant.


out of curiosity, how long until a "white NBA players association" or a "white NFL players association" would be acceptable?

Most black associations came about in response to unfair practices that excluded them or were detrimental to them. I donít think that ever has been, is now, or will be in the future, the case in sports for white players. So, what would be the point of forming a white players association. I donít even think there are black players associations in most professional sports, and they were excluded from some sports and certain positions on the team at one time.


the only issue i have is although you are correct in why and how the NCAAP was founded, i think you will agree it has veered away from that original intent. somehow i dont see them coming to the aid of an irish or italian american group today, at least not as long as jackson and sharpton are around.

As an organization, they have certainly changed over time. Ironically, as conditions for black Americans have improved, thanks in large part to their efforts, they have become less relevant. However, I donít think theyíve veered far from their original intent. Their focus now is more on improving educational and economic opportunities for blacks, while still trying to eliminate racial discrimination. There was an effort by some on this board to paint the NAACP as a racist organization. However, when challenged, no one presented one racist comment or action by them as a group.

You have to remember, they arenít the ACLU. Their intent was never to come to the rescue of everyone. However, while researching the Houston Black Firefighters Association, I found an article where the NAACP came out publically to defend a white firefighter accused of racial intimidation because he had a noose hanging in his locker. For obvious reasons, a noose holds negative racial connotations for black people. The white firefighter was reprimanded by the Houston Fire Dept. However, the NAACP investigated the circumstances, and found the noose was actually a souvenir from when he went through the academy. New recruits were required to wear the noose around their waists, like some sort of hazing ritual. It had nothing to do with being a racist symbol. The NAACP came to his defense and also appealed to the Houston Fire Dept. to have the letter of reprimand removed from his record.

Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton are not representatives of the NAACP. They have separate agendas, and do not necessarily speak out the same on the same issues, or respond in the same ways.

Blackstone
12-31-2010, 07:47 PM
AHHH you didn't, you did exactly what most people that lack the stones to admit someting do...

You did an awful good job of explaining why ethnic groups have there special place and group or event or day...but you did NOT answer the question(s).

WOULD WE AS WHITES BE LABLED RACISIT IF....

You didnt touch it...let alone with a 10' pole. That was alot of research and typing to do to answer that SIMPLE QUESTION.

NCA




After reading Blackstones response....those two bolded portions kept comming to mind...man he did a lot of research and posted some great reasons for the creation of minority groups, councils, colliations pride days, etc etc, but he just doesnt asnswer the questions.....

NCA

I feel I answered the questions. They may not have been answered to your satisfaction, and you may not have liked the answers, but I did answer. Most of the questions were based on distorted parodies, and I will not answer them out of context just to satisfy you. Nor will I give a simple answer to questions that require an explanation.

As noted, some of those organizations specific to whites already exist, and have not been labeled as racist. Others were racist, and were labeled as such. Just because the word ďWhiteĒ was not attached to an organizationís name, doesnít mean it was not a white organization. If that is how it functioned, then that is what it was.

To some of the others, it would depend on the motive behind why they were formed. If they were formed with the intent of being racist, then yes they would be viewed that way.

Now, if you have questions, why not pose them for yourself. I assure you, I have the ďstonesĒ to answer them.

mjh345
12-31-2010, 08:26 PM
, . So, I think you would have to ask yourself what would be the motive behind forming a special interest group representing whites only. They arenít being discriminated against. They arenít being denied economic or social opportunities, so what would they be trying to accomplish? The answer to that question would determine whether or not they were considered racist.




.

Excuse me, but I believe whites get discriminated against quite frequently in hiring, admission to professional schools and other areas of life, due to quotas and affirmative action
When I was in Law school my buddy Todd was dating a girl in the admissions office and she showed us the LSAT scores of all students. It was shocking to see the discrepancy of what got admitted for white students vs. minority students.

At the time the LSAT was a different scoring than today. In our class the highest score was a 48, the lowest score for a white student was a 30. There were only 2 whites with less than a 34 and they were admitted on a special program for law enforcement personnel. There were minority students admitted with scores in the low teens.
If you understand anything about standardized tests and scoring they are skewed tightly in a bell curve. To be admitted with a score in the low teens is a phenominal difference of many standard deviations. If you can find the test center and have a pulse you can get a score in the low teens.

A white student could get a score more than double what a minority student got and not even be considered for admission. There are also many jobs that give preference points to minorities. That to me is discrimination would you not agree?

dnf777
12-31-2010, 09:04 PM
Excuse me, but I believe whites get discriminated against quite frequently in hiring, admission to professional schools and other areas of life, due to quotas and affirmative action
When I was in Law school my buddy Todd was dating a girl in the admissions office and she showed us the LSAT scores of all students. It was shocking to see the discrepancy of what got admitted for white students vs. minority students.

At the time the LSAT was a different scoring than today. In our class the highest score was a 48, the lowest score for a white student was a 30. There were only 2 whites with less than a 34 and they were admitted on a special program for law enforcement personnel. There were minority students admitted with scores in the low teens.
If you understand anything about standardized tests and scoring they are skewed tightly in a bell curve. To be admitted with a score in the low teens is a phenominal difference of many standard deviations. If you can find the test center and have a pulse you can get a score in the low teens.

A white student could get a score more than double what a minority student got and not even be considered for admission. There are also many jobs that give preference points to minorities. That to me is discrimination would you not agree?


Isn't it ironic that all the programs and actions you just complained about in law school.....were brought about through the actions of LAWYERS!! :D:D

Marvin S
12-31-2010, 09:13 PM
There are still segregated country clubs that you can join if you are white, without regard to anglo ethnicity. Many whites in this country closely associated themselves with the ethnicity of their ancestors, yet still benefited from being lumped in the ďwhiteĒ category.

Interesting statement - please name some!!!!!!!!


So, I think you would have to ask yourself what would be the motive behind forming a special interest group representing whites only. They arenít being discriminated against. They arenít being denied economic or social opportunities, so what would they be trying to accomplish? The answer to that question would determine whether or not they were considered racist.

You need to get out more :). It's an everyday occurrence, specifically in our school systems & sports. I am no longer impressed when XXX athlete is the center of attention the minute I hear he was coached by his dad. Think there was an open competition for that position?

It also happens in the business world, it is not considered unscrupulous to take advantage of someone of a different nationality &/or religion in certain circles.


Most black associations came about in response to unfair practices that excluded them or were detrimental to them. I donít think that ever has been, is now, or will be in the future, the case in sports for white players. So, what would be the point of forming a white players association. I donít even think there are black players associations in most professional sports, and they were excluded from some sports and certain positions on the team at one time.

Those situations no longer exist, why do the black associations continue to exist?

Blackstone
01-01-2011, 12:51 AM
Interesting statement - please name some!!!!!!!!

Forest Lake Club, SC, Elkridge Club, md, Round Hill country club, CT, Dallas County Club, TX & Brook Hollow Golf Club, TX. These are some of the more high profile clubs that I can think of.


You need to get out more :). It's an everyday occurrence, specifically in our school systems & sports. I am no longer impressed when XXX athlete is the center of attention the minute I hear he was coached by his dad. Think there was an open competition for that position?

It also happens in the business world, it is not considered unscrupulous to take advantage of someone of a different nationality &/or religion in certain circles.

I guess I do need to get out more because I have no idea what you’re talking about. You’re going to have to explain that one a little better for me.


Those situations no longer exist, why do the black associations continue to exist?

What situations no longer exist?

BonMallari
01-01-2011, 05:49 AM
Forest Lake Club, SC, Elkridge Club, md, Round Hill country club, CT, Dallas County Club, TX & Brook Hollow Golf Club, TX. These are some of the more high profile clubs that I can think of.



I guess I do need to get out more because I have no idea what youíre talking about. Youíre going to have to explain that one a little better for me.



What situations no longer exist?

if I am not mistaken with Dallas CC you have to be a family member to inherit a membership, Brookhollow doesnt surprise me...But you may have to add Royal Oaks CC in Dallas along with Shoal Creek in Ala, and Butler National in Indiana to the list, heck pro golfer Tom Watson (not RTF'er T.Watson) gave up his membership to his home club in Kansas City because they refused admittance of Jewish members and in this case it was Henry Block of H&R Block..Watson's former wife was Jewish also

But then again these are PRIVATE clubs and can admit whomever they please

mjh345
01-01-2011, 08:18 AM
Isn't it ironic that all the programs and actions you just complained about in law school.....were brought about through the actions of LAWYERS!! :D:D

I wasn't complaining Dave, I was just commenting on the fact that racism against whites also exists.

I doubt that the lower scoring students who weren't admitted were terribly upset either since they are all now gainfully emploted after getting accepted into Med school.

From what I understand the really low functioning ones did their surgical residency at UPMC!!

Happy New Years to you and yours

Blackstone
01-01-2011, 08:23 AM
if I am not mistaken with Dallas CC you have to be a family member to inherit a membership, Brookhollow doesnt surprise me...But you may have to add Royal Oaks CC in Dallas along with Shoal Creek in Ala, and Butler National in Indiana to the list, heck pro golfer Tom Watson (not RTF'er T.Watson) gave up his membership to his home club in Kansas City because they refused admittance of Jewish members and in this case it was Henry Block of H&R Block..Watson's former wife was Jewish also

But then again these are PRIVATE clubs and can admit whomever they please

I'm pretty sure the Dallas CC accepts new members if they are invited by, but they have to be invited by a current member and approved. It's just that minorities never get approved. Even Alex Rodriguez was turned down for membership by the Dallas CC.

One of the big controversies about Dallas CC & Brook Hollow is they recieve property tax exemptions, which means residents, black & white, are being forced to subsidize the behavior.

I think Kansas City admitted at least one minority member in response to publicity over Tom Watson quitting. I think Shoal Creek & Augusta Natl. did the same after the PGA instituted a rule not to hold tournaments at segregated clubs. The PGA instituted the rule after getting a lot of bad press for holding tournaments at segregated clubs. I guess they weren't going to let a little racism stand in the way of making money.

Marvin S
01-01-2011, 09:07 AM
I doubt that the lower scoring students who weren't admitted were terribly upset either since they are all now gainfully emploted after getting accepted into Med school.

From what I understand the really low functioning ones did their surgical residency at UPMC!!



:) :) :) :) :) ..............

dnf777
01-01-2011, 11:58 AM
I wasn't complaining Dave, I was just commenting on the fact that racism against whites also exists.

I doubt that the lower scoring students who weren't admitted were terribly upset either since they are all now gainfully emploted after getting accepted into Med school.

From what I understand the really low functioning ones did their surgical residency at UPMC!!

Happy New Years to you and yours


I have mixed feelings on the affirmitive action programs. I think they do boil down to a form of discrimination, intended to undo a past wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. OTOH, I don't believe we live in a discrimination-free society yet. We have made remarkable strides to be proud of, but I think there is work to be done on both "sides".

The minority communities have the largest stake in their success, but you don't often see that attitude prevail in those communities. When I see people like Bill Cosby and Obama being ridiculed from their own race of people when they tell folks to take their own destinies in their hands, it really sours me.

As I've mentioned before, our medical school class had two minority students fail out, and they clearly were not qualified to matriculate in the first place. Of note, the only other person to fail out was white.....and was a lawyer!
She is still a friend, and admits she had no idea how much more difficult med school was than law.

Personally, I think its just two very different forms of learning...and some people are just suited better for one or the other.