Harry Reid and the Negro Dialect

[quote name='camoor']Did I say anything about the lesser of two evils arguement? Don't strawman me, you're better then that.

It appears the guy is literate and can access the internet. Plus he claims to vote in local elections where the options tend to be extremely limited. Given this, he should be able to find a candidate he can vote for or write-in. I'll even offer to lmgtfy when 2012 rolls around to show you it's not too hard to get an extremely wide spectrum of candidates with different ideologies and experience.

And for the record I think the "lesser of two evils" arguement sucks.

Cthulhu-elections.gif
[/QUOTE]

No, what you're saying is vote. I'm saying, my intentional non-vote is my vote. What does a write-in of Mickey Mouse, Osama bin Laden, or Cheech Marin accomplish? Voting for the sake of voting is assanine to me.

Where I feel like I have options worthy of a vote, I elect to use my right to vote. More than voting for senators and congressman, I vote on measures. That's clear cut. Are you in favor or something, are you against it.

If I'm strongly in favor of one part of a politician's promise, but strongly against another, then that is not my ideal candidate, so I'm not going to vote so someone can pat me on the head like a good puppy and say, "I'm so proud you voted for someone, even though you didn't really like them". To me, only a fool votes for someone just because they feel peer pressure to brag that they voted.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']This post reminded me of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI[/QUOTE]

This post or the fact that nearly every major right wing talk-show host played the last today. Seriously, if anyone missed Limbaugh for a day, just check Elprincipe's posts for an (uncredited) recap.


The irony of right wing claim of "double standard" is if you guys had defended Lott half as much as you are now, he never would've had to resign.
 
He's saying you could vote for the Libertarian candidate or the dozen of other candidates that will be running from parties like the Green, Socialist, and Communist Parties. There is a candidate out there for you and it's lazy to say that you have to vote for one or the other.
 
[quote name='depascal22']He's saying you could vote for the Libertarian candidate or the dozen of other candidates that will be running from parties like the Green, Socialist, and Communist Parties. There is a candidate out there for you and it's lazy to say that you have to vote for one or the other.[/QUOTE]

You know nothing about me other than the fact that I appreciate Cheap Ass games. Who the hell are you to tell me that a candidate that matches my political beliefs across categories exists, and is on the ballot?

I don't see how someone who keeps up on politics and current affairs, electing not to vote in presidential elections is lazy. But then again, a lot of you aren't making much sense, why start now.

Did ya hear some of the greatest hits games on demand are gonna be cheaper!?
 
The perfect spouse is a figment of the imagination, too, Bezirk.

[quote name='berzirk']Did ya hear some of the greatest hits games on demand are gonna be cheaper!?[/QUOTE]

Hey! Common ground! Is this true?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The perfect spouse is a figment of the imagination, too, Bezirk.



Hey! Common ground! Is this true?[/QUOTE]

"The perfect spouse is a figment of the imagination, too, Bezirk."

-My wife is well aware of that.

"Hey! Common ground! Is this true?[/"

-Indeed: http://majornelson.com/
 
Being married doesn't mean you have the perfect spouse. It means you married the closest you can get to one.

I dare you to lie to my face and say that your spouse is absolutely flawless and has no faults whatsoever.

And thanks for that link.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Being married doesn't mean you have the perfect spouse. It means you married the closest you can get to one.

I dare you to lie to my face and say that your spouse is absolutely flawless and has no faults whatsoever.

And thanks for that link.[/QUOTE]

Meh, sarcasm translates poorly in posts. I was making the joke that my wife is well aware that the perfect spouse doesn't exist, she married me.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Clinton imposed term limits on welfare, something that hadn't been achieved until then.

Also, Hope VI. Look it up. Read about it. Don't sit drooling by the radio waiting for Mark Levin to shriek about it.

You're fucking moronic if you genuinely believe any of what comes from your fingertips. Like seriously fucking stupid. Wallowing in the morass of not-even-good-enough-to-be-revisionist history. A history that is the product of a passive, lazy, swollen ego, so teeming with self-righteous adulation that it never dares enter into a skeptical or critical thinking phase with which it challenged itself, becoming dormanr, absorbent, and porous, like the belly of someone who has never exercised in their life.

I'm not exaggerating here: your claims of what Clinton did are easily refuted by what Clinton did. Any claim you make is unsupported nonsense.

You're pants-shittingly stupid, kiddo.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oidPxJDH5x0

Right. All they did was play the clips.

Note: this was a lazy "first youtube link that wasn't someone's personal vlog" link. Which shows, again, how perpetually wrong you are.



I don't recall saying I was great. But I was pointing out how dead wrong you are. Like "Halo is coming out on PS3" wrong.

Also, there's plenty of research on race and public attitudes of minorities based on skin color. Here's one that shows the variance in attitudes, and corresponding skepticism, that relates to candidates with darker skin color: http://www.jstor.org/pss/2111542

But you won't read that either. You'll still live in your twisted world where facts take a backseat to ideology, and you can claim historical points that are about as accurate as saying JFK emancipated penguins in the serengeti desert, or that John Tyler single-handedly won the franco-prussian war, or William Henry Harrison was a huge fan of the "Back to the Future" trilogy, or that Ronald Reagan's economic policies helped the United States. You know, absurd bullshit like that.

I'm not great, and you're not smart. So let's move on.[/QUOTE]


First off you would sound a lot smarter if you didn't resort to petty namecalling and cursing and just made your point without all the failed attempts at what you think passes for humor or witty one. Secondly you never did say you're great but you certainly come across like that.

Next you provided us with a clip of two people talking about a speech or statement (they didn't play it) he had made recently at the time. Do you know what I saw? Two people debating. Shocking. It was really tastless of them to bring in two sides of a matter and engage in a respectful discussion. I know you much pefer to belittle and pass some terrible jokes as opposed to making a concise argument.

You really didn't answer how the media destroyed Wright. Wright said those views of his own free will and many of them were anti-white, anti-American, and just plain stupid. Now people say stupid shit all the time, I could make a Strell joke here but then I would be petty :) , but when he is saying this while a future candidate for the presidency is running for election, isn't that worth investigating? Nobody misquoted him or slandered him, he opened his mouth and did it, the news justs reported it.

Back to Clinton and all the good he did for the black community. Please look up Clinton's lack of humanity for the people of Rwanda where he failed to help the 500,000- 1 million blacks who died because of his lack of action, but then sent troops to fight the genocides in Yugoslavia, a predominately white country. Oh and the good Rev keeps tapping my shoulder...

“Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain’t! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty.” (sermon) Rev. Wright



See I made it through a whole post without crappy humor or flaming you back, try to be a little mature. Cause if I do then I'm a hypocrite Christian but it's ok to make fun of us, we just have to sit there and take it, blah blah blah.
 
Nothing Reid said is racist at all. He is a loyal Obama supporter and is actively carrying out Obama's agendas. Typical racist Repubs are just too ignorant to know what is racist and what isn't.
 
Take your medicine, admit that your points about Clinton were as far from the truth as you could possibly be, and maybe then we'll begin to talk.

But you don't get to call the shots when you can't bring anything of merit to the table. Start to debate based on facts, like a grown up with dignity and self-respect - that's the first step.

You come blustering in here with bullshit and you get what you deserve: to be fucking called on it.

I call you on your bullshit, and now you're butthurt because I wasn't nice about it. Let me be crystal clear on this point: I don't have to be nice to someone who doesn't deserve to participate in broader political discourse because their sense of reality is so off course. Your political points have never shown any merit, any effort, or any use. You want credit just for showing up and mimicking what you see and hear on television. I don't work that way.

You get respect when you earn it. And you ain't even close to the start line.

Don't like it? Put me on ignore, because I'm not going to stop pointing out how perpetually wrong you are, and I'm not going to be nice about it. That way you can kill two birds with one stone: you can avoid me being unkind, and you can avoid having your fucked-up sense of history shattered, one bumper sticker slogan after another.
 
[quote name='UncleBob'] It's like the idea that Bush 'dumbed down' when he ran for President in order to reach a broader audience.[/QUOTE]
I hope he realizes he can turn it off now.:lol:
 
[quote name='JolietJake']I hope he realizes he can turn it off now.:lol:[/QUOTE]

I still go with the theory that he just burnt out on cocaine....
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Take your medicine, admit that your points about Clinton were as far from the truth as you could possibly be, and maybe then we'll begin to talk.

But you don't get to call the shots when you can't bring anything of merit to the table. Start to debate based on facts, like a grown up with dignity and self-respect - that's the first step.

You come blustering in here with bullshit and you get what you deserve: to be fucking called on it.

I call you on your bullshit, and now you're butthurt because I wasn't nice about it. Let me be crystal clear on this point: I don't have to be nice to someone who doesn't deserve to participate in broader political discourse because their sense of reality is so off course. Your political points have never shown any merit, any effort, or any use. You want credit just for showing up and mimicking what you see and hear on television. I don't work that way.

You get respect when you earn it. And you ain't even close to the start line.

Don't like it? Put me on ignore, because I'm not going to stop pointing out how perpetually wrong you are, and I'm not going to be nice about it. That way you can kill two birds with one stone: you can avoid me being unkind, and you can avoid having your fucked-up sense of history shattered, one bumper sticker slogan after another.[/QUOTE]

The MSM didn't even mention the Rev. Wright scandel until Sean Hannity mentioned it on his show. And that was after Wrights comments were known by pretty much everyone, all over Youtube, on talk radio, etc. The MSM only mentioned it after it became very well known. I'm sure you just (conveniently) forgot to mention this tidbit in your non-fucked up history lesson on bullshit.

Thats of course not saying that this argument of a segregationist being as bad a negro comment isn't worse bullshit.
 
[quote name='berzirk']You know nothing about me other than the fact that I appreciate Cheap Ass games. .[/QUOTE]

I know that you don't vote in presidential elections because a candidate doesn't exist. All I said was that there are several candidates out there and that it's lazy to say there isn't a single one that doesn't match most of your criteria. You're never going to find a politician that will follow your exact political agenda and it's naive at best to expect it.

As for the Harry Reid negro comments, this whole argument again goes along party lines. Liberals are acting like it's not that big of a deal white the Conservatives are going "Gotcha!". Another great vs. discussion derailed by partisan bullshit.

That being said, it's much worse to say that we would be better off with a segragationist as a President than to say that Obama is a good Negro.
 
[quote name='depascal22']I know that you don't vote in presidential elections because a candidate doesn't exist. All I said was that there are several candidates out there and that it's lazy to say there isn't a single one that doesn't match most of your criteria. You're never going to find a politician that will follow your exact political agenda and it's naive at best to expect it.

As for the Harry Reid negro comments, this whole argument again goes along party lines. Liberals are acting like it's not that big of a deal white the Conservatives are going "Gotcha!". Another great vs. discussion derailed by partisan bullshit.

That being said, it's much worse to say that we would be better off with a segragationist as a President than to say that Obama is a good Negro.[/QUOTE]

"That being said, it's much worse to say that we would be better off with a segragationist as a President than to say that Obama is a good Negro"

-Please find a single quote where Lott ever said that. Matter of fact, please find a single quote where Reid said "Obama is a good Negro". Your problem is that you're stuffing words into people's mouths, and making assumptions about things you're uneducated about, like me being lazy for not finding candidates I'm comfortble endorsing with my vote, or making up things that these two politicians said.

My point was that the Lott situation requires one to assume that at Strom's 100 yr birthday party Lott explicitly meant he thought segregation would be better for the country. Who are we to tell him what he meant to say by comments that were not to that effect at all? Reid's issue was from a direct quote that he gave. You can take it at face value and analyze the severity of it. The Lott and Reid situations are exceptionally different, and hypocrits from both sides are using them for political gain.
 
C'mon berzirk, he is not saying Lott said that verbatim. He is not saying Reid said 'good negro' verbatim either. It's what their comments were implying.

Lott's comment was interpreted to mean , like depascal said, that we would be better off with a segregationist as a President. Note that the White House didn't even defend his comments.

The two situations really are vastly different, you're right about that.
 
There you go agan saying whatever BS you gotta say to avoid the question about Wright. You're just mad that people discussed Wright and didn't give him a free pass. You have no problem with all the Palin bashing which boarders on obsessive by you left wing fanatics. Liberals just hate female politicians. And what about Clinton, I guess if Rwanda citizens could vote in US elections then Bubba might have jumped in. Just keep your blind love for all things liberal, you have been brainwashed so much that there is no turning back.


I'm not afraid of you, the more I push you, the more you stop debating and attack me. Eventually I will expose you for the miserable hypocrite that you are and your mindless beliefs in your unpopular president and congress. The more you attack me the more bitter you sound. You are already the most close-minded person on these boards so stop trying to pass yourself for a moderate and just make excuses for all the mistakes of this administration which I'm sure you think is THE BEST EVAR!!!
 
[quote name='IRHari']C'mon berzirk, he is not saying Lott said that verbatim. He is not saying Reid said 'good negro' verbatim either. It's what their comments were implying.

Lott's comment was interpreted to mean , like depascal said, that we would be better off with a segregationist as a President. Note that the White House didn't even defend his comments.

The two situations really are vastly different, you're right about that.[/QUOTE]

Right, but my point really is, to call Lott's statement racially inappropriate, requires someone to interpret what was in his head when he said it. Reid's is a word for word quote.

I personally don't think in a million years either situation is grounds for losing your job, but I'm frustrated by people who pretend like it's the same. One requires you to assume, the other requires you to read.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But words have meaning and contexts - and to see your side of things, you're asking us to intentionally ignore them in both cases.[/QUOTE]

OK, so in the context of some vegetable's 100th birthday party, you think a politician making a statement is going to say to Strom, "I wish you coulda kept the coloreds away from my whites only drinking fountain?"

Come on.

Maybe a better question for you guys that are defending Reid, do you think Lott should've lost his position over his comments, and Reid should keep his?

Personally I believe neither of them should lose their positions.
 
Well, what do you think would've happened if Strom Thurmond or George Wallace would've been President?

Oh, and here's your word for word quote:

Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

What was the Dixiecrats' platform in 1948? The opposition of federally imposed racial integration. Now where would you go with this next step? Since I know nothing about you, I don't want to assume anything and go too fast for you.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']There you go agan saying whatever BS you gotta say to avoid the question about Wright. You're just mad that people discussed Wright and didn't give him a free pass. You have no problem with all the Palin bashing which boarders on obsessive by you left wing fanatics. Liberals just hate female politicians. And what about Clinton, I guess if Rwanda citizens could vote in US elections then Bubba might have jumped in. Just keep your blind love for all things liberal, you have been brainwashed so much that there is no turning back.


I'm not afraid of you, the more I push you, the more you stop debating and attack me. Eventually I will expose you for the miserable hypocrite that you are and your mindless beliefs in your unpopular president and congress. The more you attack me the more bitter you sound. You are already the most close-minded person on these boards so stop trying to pass yourself for a moderate and just make excuses for all the mistakes of this administration which I'm sure you think is THE BEST EVAR!!![/QUOTE]

Clinton Clinton Clinton Clinton.

I want you to know that I read this post, and that I'm not substantively responding to it until you begin to wrangle with how completely off base on Clinton's record you are. If you lack the dignity to admit when you are wrong, you're not worth debating at all in the future - so my refusal to discuss this with you have its pragmatism as well, no?
 
The countries would have been better off if Strom Thurmond had been president. We would have had a second Civil War and had the end of the Union.

Then, the North could have an illegal redneck problem and the South could maintain wars with brown people to maintain the MIC.
 
[quote name='depascal22']Well, what do you think would've happened if Strom Thurmond or George Wallace would've been President?

Oh, and here's your word for word quote:

Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

What was the Dixiecrats' platform in 1948? The opposition of federally imposed racial integration. Now where would you go with this next step? Since I know nothing about you, I don't want to assume anything and go too fast for you.[/QUOTE]

Well you see in bezirkville saying you will "put a bullet in someones brain" is much different from saying you would "kill someone" and it offends him personally for anyone to conflate the two.
 
The Southern man knows the negro, and the negro knows him. The only conflict which has, or is ever likely to arise, springs from the effort of ill-advised friends in the North to confer upon him, without previous training or preparation, places of power and responsibility, for which he is wholly unfitted, either by capacity or experience.
Click to expand...

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/...1/proceedings/1901_proceedings_vol1/day2.html

Now, look. John Knox leading this Constitutional Congress in Alabama was 109 years ago. Quite some years, I get that. But I think that it serves as a reminder historically that we're dealing with a problem 4 centuries old. It's a problem that continues to exist, and has changed shape (in many ways, possibly, for the worse, at least in terms of how people can behave in racist ways and hide it, deny it, and even be unaware of it right now).

Anyone who thinks we are a society largely free from racism and discrimination, or someone who believes that white people have to work harder to prove things or acquire things in the face of AA policies - pinpoint the time when this shift started. When did racism end, and when did the oppression of whites begin? I'm curious what you think it is. Provide concrete answers in terms of time and examples - no vague allusions, please, as those aren't worth responding to (that means you, jputa).
 
[quote name='depascal22']Well, what do you think would've happened if Strom Thurmond or George Wallace would've been President?

Oh, and here's your word for word quote:

Lott said: "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either."

What was the Dixiecrats' platform in 1948? The opposition of federally imposed racial integration. Now where would you go with this next step? Since I know nothing about you, I don't want to assume anything and go too fast for you.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']Well you see in bezirkville saying you will "put a bullet in someones brain" is much different from saying you would "kill someone" and it offends him personally for anyone to conflate the two.[/QUOTE]

How charming. Now it takes two of you to debate me.

Just to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding you, depascal, you truly believe that a prominent politician, would in effect mean that he wishes the country was segregated, and the fact that blacks can drink out of white water fountains and can ride in the front of the bus is the reason many of the problems in this country currently exist? You REALLY think Lott was intentionally implying that he wished segregation won, and wasn't instead referring to another aspect of Thurmond, perhaps a compliment to his leadership, or another facet? If you believe that, then there's not point debating any further. I think to assume that would be ludicrous, irrational, and assanine. Anyhoo.

Msut. I truly have no idea what thefuck you're talking about. To bring it back to relevancy, if Lott said, "We voted for Strom, we are proud of that vote, and had he won, the country would be better for it, and I'd still have my own water fountain", then I'd be all for calling the guy a racist pig and kicking him out of politics. He didn't come anywhere close to that, as pascal so kindly posted for us. (and if you want to get quite technical, yes, putting a bullet in someone's brain or killing them are quite different, but that's according to silly things that don't matter...like the law)

Berzirkville is a beautiful, non-partisan land. As the founder, I've enjoyed it.
 
Completely off topic from what berzirk is saying, but who cares that Reid said this. He doesn't need to resign, absolutely nothing he said has anything to do with his current job. It's not going to affect his ability to do his job, or change how he works. So the whole call to resign thing is just stupid imo.

Ya, he said something stupid and probably regrets it now. Oh well, maybe I should care what he said and make a big deal about it, but I just can't make myself care that he said what he did.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']Completely off topic from what berzirk is saying, but who cares that Reid said this. He doesn't need to resign, absolutely nothing he said has anything to do with his current job. It's not going to affect his ability to do his job, or change how he works. So the whole call to resign thing is just stupid imo.

Ya, he said something stupid and probably regrets it now. Oh well, maybe I should care what he said and make a big deal about it, but I just can't make myself care that he said what he did.[/QUOTE]

That's my position as well. That he and Lott shouldn't lose (or lost) their jobs over it. It's just a bunch of folks that want to stuff words in Lott's mouth to justify kicking him out, but not touching Reid.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Now it takes two of you to debate me.[/quote]

You aren't debating anything, therefore I am not debating you.

I truly have no idea what thefuck you're talking about.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that.

you want to get quite technical, yes, putting a bullet in someone's brain or killing them are quite different, but that's according to silly things that don't matter...like the law
Click to expand...

It isn't guaranteed but... fuck man. There is splitting hairs and then there is this.
 
[quote name='berzirk']How charming. Now it takes two of you to debate me.[/QUOTE]

I just enjoy the massive amount of delusion present in this statement.

In berzirkville, the more people who disagree with you, the better your idea is.
 
[quote name='camoor']I just enjoy the massive amount of delusion present in this statement.

In berzirkville, the more people who disagree with you, the better your idea is.[/QUOTE]

Hey, that seems to be the train of thought for Democratic Health Care Reform.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Just to make sure that I'm not misunderstanding you, depascal, you truly believe that a prominent politician, would in effect mean that he wishes the country was segregated, and the fact that blacks can drink out of white water fountains and can ride in the front of the bus is the reason many of the problems in this country currently exist? You REALLY think Lott was intentionally implying that he wished segregation won, and wasn't instead referring to another aspect of Thurmond, perhaps a compliment to his leadership, or another facet? If you believe that, then there's not point debating any further. I think to assume that would be ludicrous, irrational, and assanine. Anyhoo.[/QUOTE]

He didn't compliment his leadership or another facet of his persona. Lott said this country would've been better off if Thurmond won, period. He didn't say. "Hey, the rampant lynching would've been bad but everything else would've been so much better." There wasn't a qualifying statement with his quote. He came out and said America would be a better place if a politician that ran solely on the merits of segregation and states' rights would've won the Presidency in 1948.

How about this then? What if a politican came out and said, "This world would've been alot better place if the Nazis had won World War II." Would you still sit there and defend him and pretend that he was really talking about how nice the autobahns would be?
 
[quote name='berzirk']you truly believe that a prominent politician, would in effect mean that he wishes the country was segregated, and the fact that blacks can drink out of white water fountains and can ride in the front of the bus is the reason many of the problems in this country currently exist?[/QUOTE]

I know this wasn't asked of me, but I would answer "abso-fucking-lutely."

Racism is just as prominent in this society as it has been in the past - but it's hidden, it's subtle, and it doesn't take the same form that it did in the past. But it's still here, you betcha. Recognizing when it happens right in front of your face is an important trait to develop. Recognizing that racism takes many subtle shapes and forms, does not need to be done intentionally on the part of the racist actor, is crucial.

The first step is acknowledging that there are many gradient steps between "we should repeal the Emancipation Proclamation" and racial equality is the first step.

Let me put it to you this way: before the Civil Rights Act passed in the mid-1960's, there was no cognitive correlation between blacks and crime and blacks and welfare. That is of course no longer the case, and a prior associative correlation of 0.03 jumped to 0.61. That's not circumstance.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me put it to you this way: before the Civil Rights Act passed in the mid-1960's, there was no cognitive correlation between blacks and crime and blacks and welfare. That is of course no longer the case, and a prior associative correlation of 0.03 jumped to 0.61. That's not circumstance.[/QUOTE]

Obviously you must know how the right will respond, which is to point out the disintegration of the traditional black family and decline of family values as the root causes of these problems. Given your background, I'm somewhat interested in how you answer that.
 
the change in criminal law and criminal penalties starting in the early 1970s has a significant role in the disintegration of the traditional black family.

the decline of family values is a fraud, for the most part.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']the change in criminal law and criminal penalties starting in the early 1970s has a significant role in the disintegration of the traditional black family.

the decline of family values is a fraud, for the most part.[/QUOTE]

Do you mean drug penalties (especially crack cocaine)? Or other laws/penalties? I'm assuming you mean that more black men in jail has led to a decline in traditional families.
 
[quote name='bmulligan']Another example of the duplicity of Democrats. If this situation were reversed, and Reid we're a republican senator, he would be run out of town on a rail. But because he's a Cardinal in the Democrat party who leads the current agenda in Congress, we get a heartfelt and disingenuous apology with forgiveness. This is sickening that racists like Reid and Biden are allowed to pass for respectable human beings.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100109/ap_on_el_se/us_obama_reid


Remember, as long as you are loyal to the party, you get redemption. Keep those registered Democrat cards handy.[/QUOTE]


This is why I don't trust any of the fools in Congress. Everything is about getting a vote. Nothing more, nothing less. Those comments are no better than anything Rush Limbaugh has said. As a black man, both Reid and Limbaugh can kiss my ass and this is why I don't give a shit about the Republican or Democratic parties. Let's not forget, the black politicians that "represent" my people can be just as stupid. Ask Jesse aka "Hymietown" Jackson. fuck all of them. When they say this stupid shit they are being their true selves for a brief moment instead of John Everyman.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Do you mean drug penalties (especially crack cocaine)? Or other laws/penalties? I'm assuming you mean that more black men in jail has led to a decline in traditional families.[/QUOTE]

More black men in jail, precisely. But also what laws and changes led to that increased racial representation.

I'll give you more detail in a bit. I'm committed to a long gaming session today. ;)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']More black men in jail, precisely. But also what laws and changes led to that increased racial representation.

I'll give you more detail in a bit. I'm committed to a long gaming session today. ;)[/QUOTE]

Feel free to add to my post.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 count the bias towards black Americans

Expension of the War on Drugs, by the end of his administration the prison population had increased over 50% many by poor black drug users and lost the privilege of voting when their longer than average prison sentence ended.

Death Penalty Act of 1996

NAFTA which took away many jobs from the US which were held by blacks

PS These were all passed by Clinton, a white Democrat
 
Good citations - great examples.

I just shed a tear. Good on ya, jputa. Democrats are most certainly not exempt from the trends of increasingly punitive criminal justice policies. In fact, they may be more culpable as they are more susceptible to "soft on crime" criticisms (see Michael Dukakis and Willie Horton), so they have more to prove, so to speak, policywise.
 
Hey, he got to blame Clinton for it, which means it's internally consistent.

But he would never point to Nixon and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

But, hey, I'll take what I can get at this point. jputa was accurate and correct in his assessment of things Clinton did in the 1990's to exacerbate racial inequality in legislation. But those patterns go back several decades, through Bush, Reagan, and Nixon. Especially Nixon, boy howdy.
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']NAFTA which took away many jobs from the US which were held by blacks
[/QUOTE]

I agreed with everything you said until I read this. I've never heard one brother complaining in the hood that NAFTA took his job.

NAFTA took manufacturing and trucking jobs away. Not exactly career fields filled with blacks.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hey, he got to blame Clinton for it, which means it's internally consistent.

But he would never point to Nixon and the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration.

But, hey, I'll take what I can get at this point. jputa was accurate and correct in his assessment of things Clinton did in the 1990's to exacerbate racial inequality in legislation. But those patterns go back several decades, through Bush, Reagan, and Nixon. Especially Nixon, boy howdy.[/QUOTE]

I get the biggest thrill of blaming government which I think gets it wrong most of the time. In reality I think there is to little oversight and to much corruption in government to ever give the average person a fair shake white or black. But whatever politicans made this legislation, it was never amended or overturned by any future presidents or congress, so we can really pass the blame to them all. Neither party really understands what the people want, they are all, mostly, well to do and don't face the same hardships and decisions that we do. When they make these laws, they are only doing what they think will get them reelected and don't take any unpopular stances at the risk of losing their base.

It's nice that we can agree for a change, I think that more damage to minorities is done by politicians passing legislation then some old-fashioned people who will never warm up to other nationallities. There is always going to be pride and ethnocentrism, at least where I live many latinos are very proud of there country and to an extent I'm proud of my heritage. But you can't control what people think and as long as they only think it and don't act on anything crazy then we just have to accept that we are different people living together and there will be some people for whatever reason just don't get along with others. There is more racism is America I believe because so many differenet nationalities call America home. Whole countries don' get along with each other so on a micro level there will be some degree of that here. My gf is hispanic and Catholic, I'm white (big surprise right :)) by I don't have any problems, hispanics and blacks are mostly some denomination of Christian, just like the people of Haiti, not that is matters but I think most people aren't racist, they just associate more with those that are most simliar to themselves. We elected a black president so I think we have to believe that most people keep an open mind to things and the bigots of every race shouldn't be the few bad apples that spoil things. I saw a lot of generosity at my church with donations to Haiti but obviously I understand that there are still racial as well as religious (Holocaust, 6 millions people died because of their religion) crimes even today.

The way you look at Wright is the same way I look at Palin. They basically opened their mouths and did themselves in. I don't see it as a race issue, unless something racial was said by them. People say stupid shit all the time and you are going to get called on it when you are in the news.

I don't even know what my original point was, we agree on racial inequality, so what should the solution be?
 
[quote name='jputahraptor']Feel free to add to my post.

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 count the bias towards black Americans

Expension of the War on Drugs, by the end of his administration the prison population had increased over 50% many by poor black drug users and lost the privilege of voting when their longer than average prison sentence ended.

Death Penalty Act of 1996

NAFTA which took away many jobs from the US which were held by blacks

PS These were all passed by Clinton, a white Democrat[/QUOTE]

But what was the man doing with the poundcake in the first place?
 
[quote name='depascal22']I agreed with everything you said until I read this. I've never heard one brother complaining in the hood that NAFTA took his job.

NAFTA took manufacturing and trucking jobs away. Not exactly career fields filled with blacks.[/QUOTE]

Actually, here in Henry County Virginia a lot of furniture manufacturing jobs were held by blacks. Regardless of race it was the driving force in this area and why we have 20% unemployment now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top