268 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
  • |
LOS ANGELES - Three Los Angeles school teachers have been suspended for giving children pictures of O.J. Simpson, Dennis Rodman and RuPaul to carry in a Black History Month parade.


Los Angeles school district spokeswoman Gayle Pollard-Terry said Wednesday the teachers were removed from their classrooms at Wadsworth Elementary School. She says the teachers, who are white, could have made a more appropriate choice, such as Oprah Winfrey.


She says the school held the parade Friday, with children from other classes carrying photos of black heroes such as Nelson Mandela, Harriet Tubman and President Barack Obama.


The three teachers have been placed on administrative leave until an investigation is complete.




Discuss?????
  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
    Dennis Rodman and RuPaul are the pop culture equivalent of sideshow freaks, and were not appropriate choices for "Black History".

    Orenthal James Simpson, on the other hand, is a part of black history and American history in general. His spot in history is more one of infamy, but it is indeed part of history.

    If the arbiters of political correctness had their way, we would all believe that the only figures in black history were the heroes. We would believe that those black heroes had no flaws, perfect icons shining brightly for all to admire.

    I got news for you, folks. Even the current black demi-gods like Obama and Oprah have their flaws. Neither of them reached their current positions without socking away a few skeletons in their respective closets.

    My questions:

    > Would the parties named have been more appropriate had the teachers in question been black?

    > Would there have been any need for suspensions or an investigation?

    > Would there have been the same outrage had the teachers picked people like Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan or other violently anti-white "black leaders"?

    > Why is "Black History Month" always a conciliatory celebration of only the best parts of black history, rather than a chance to examine all of black history?

    > And finally, by any chance would Ms. Pollard-Terry be black?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833313].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      Orenthal James Simpson, on the other hand, is a part of black history and American history in general. His spot in history is more one of infamy, but it is indeed part of history.
      Having OJ's picture hoisted in a Black History Parade makes as much sense as having Ted Bundy's picture hoisted during a Catholic Pride Parade. In other words, it's plain stupid.

      These teachers knew exactly what they were doing, and they deserved exactly what they got. I only hope that when they get off suspension they can be transfered to an all-White school where they won't be able to do harm to young African American students who look to teachers for guidance.

      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      Would there have been the same outrage had the teachers picked people like Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan or other violently anti-white "black leaders"?
      This misguided post is yet another illustration of a misinformed white guy who is ignorant about the totality of Malcom X's beliefs and his stance when he met his tragic death. If you really want to know, Wikipedia.com is where you should start. If you don't want to know the truth, I suggest you hold tightly to your misconceptions and take comfort in the fact that you're not alone.
      Signature

      Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
      http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833717].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      If the arbiters of political correctness had their way, we would all believe that the only figures in black history were the heroes. We would believe that those black heroes had no flaws, perfect icons shining brightly for all to admire.
      Not true. That's what History class is for. The purpose of those parades is an opportunity to promote a positive African American experience. By the same token, you won't see Birmingham, AL celebrate their birthday by plastering the city with pictures of Bull Conner billy clubbing "Colored Folk" or spraying them with water cannons.
      Signature

      Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
      http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833773].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Tell me you don't really need this explained to you.

      Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

      > Why is "Black History Month" always a conciliatory celebration of only the best parts of black history, rather than a chance to examine all of black history?
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861296].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Brightman
    Well put.

    I have to say that I do believe if the white bashing (and black bashing) in America doesn't stop then the hearts of many are sure to break.

    I'm all for equality and doing the right thing.

    Ah. Race is such a controversial subject. You can speak on retards, geeks, muscle heads, the fat, the skinny, the handicapped, laugh at the ugly, call the beautiful names, short people, tall people, women, men, kids, religious slanders.

    But speak on race and guns are drawn and wars begin. lol.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833385].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Brightman View Post

      Well put.

      I have to say that I do believe if the white bashing (and black bashing) in America doesn't stop then the hearts of many are sure to break.

      I'm all for equality and doing the right thing.

      Ah. Race is such a controversial subject. You can speak on retards, geeks, muscle heads, the fat, the skinny, the handicapped, laugh at the ugly, call the beautiful names, short people, tall people, women, men, kids, religious slanders.

      But speak on race and guns are drawn and wars begin. lol.
      Do you know how bad it is? Just YESTERDAY I ordered a pizza from a black man. I think NO other worker in the restaurant was black. A white woman came to ask me if I was being helped. I said well, "I asked this man for a pizza. I forget his name, but I think it begins with a C.". I then motioned about his hair being different. She offered up a name, but I couldn't be sure. I figured it was better to just say it than go hungry(She was goimng to check, and I had only like 10 minutes before I would have to say forget it). I said "Well, I should say he is black, but you know, PC and all...".

      HECK, I stumble with the terms OBESE, FAT, BALD, etc... BTW I'm bald AND pretty heavy set.

      But if you say someone is black, it is sometimes seen as singling them out, etc... In this case it was one word that IMMEDIATELY described him. BTW he apparently put the order in, I got my pizza,etc... I would have been JUST as concerned with ANYONE else. The color of his skin, etc... was ONLY to describe, and meant NOTHING else.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833460].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Do you know how bad it is? Just YESTERDAY I ordered a pizza from a black man. . . . . But if you say someone is black, it is sometimes seen as singling them out, etc... In this case it was one word that IMMEDIATELY described him. BTW he apparently put the order in, I got my pizza,etc... I would have been JUST as concerned with ANYONE else. The color of his skin, etc... was ONLY to describe, and meant NOTHING else.

        Steve
        Dude, you have issues. If he was the only black guy working, and you felt self-conscious to simply say "Yeah, somebody was helping me but I didn't get his name. He was a Black guy . . ." says more about you than you probably realize.
        Signature

        Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
        http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833738].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Profit-smart
          Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

          Dude, you have issues. If he was the only black guy working, and you felt self-conscious to simply say "Yeah, somebody was helping me but I didn't get his name. He was a Black guy . . ." says more about you than you probably realize.
          In a day and age where people can be sued for the use of "Fighting words" or any other offensive language, it says that he is both cautious, and aware of the ever increasing limits of public language.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833751].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            I agree with Rob about just saying the black guy.
            If it was the only blond female waitress I would say the blond waitress.
            If he was the only male waiter then I would just say male waiter or waiter.
            Whatever it takes to describe the server.
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833768].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

          Dude, you have issues. If he was the only black guy working, and you felt self-conscious to simply say "Yeah, somebody was helping me but I didn't get his name. He was a Black guy . . ." says more about you than you probably realize.
          it says he's your average white guy that has been socially intimidated into thinking that if you're white and reference another's race that you're a racist.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871497].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            "Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB
            Dude, you have issues. If he was the only black guy working, and you felt self-conscious to simply say "Yeah, somebody was helping me but I didn't get his name. He was a Black guy . . ." says more about you than you probably realize.
            "

            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            it says he's your average white guy that has been socially intimidated into thinking that if you're white and reference another's race that you're a racist.
            Yeah, and Rob is probably one of those blacks that thinks that whites, and only whites, spend all day trying to figure out how to make their lives hard.

            But no, I know that refering to a person's race doesn't make you racist. It is simply that some CLAIM it does, so I didn't want to be accused of racism based on such an insignificant thing.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871821].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            it says he's your average white guy that has been socially intimidated into thinking that if you're white and reference another's race that you're a racist.
            I don't agree. It doesn't say you're a racist. It says you have an irrational intimidation based solely on how you THINK a person (whom you don't know) will react.

            That's not racist behavior. IMHO it's closer to prejudicial behavior because you are pre-judging someone's reaction.

            BTW, having lived in America for the majority of my life and living and working around white people for all of my life, I can say that this behavior has not been demonstrated by the "average" white guys that I have been around. Pointing out the color of a guy to describe him automatically brands you a bold-face racist? That's not my America.

            Your mileage may vary.
            Signature

            Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
            http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871869].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

              I don't agree. It doesn't say you're a racist. It says you have an irrational intimidation based solely on how you THINK a person (whom you don't know) will react.

              That's not racist behavior. IMHO it's closer to prejudicial behavior because you are pre-judging someone's reaction.

              BTW, having lived in America for the majority of my life and living and working around white people for all of my life, I can say that this behavior has not been demonstrated by the "average" white guys that I have been around. Pointing out the color of a guy to describe him automatically brands you a bold-face racist? That's not my America.

              Your mileage may vary.
              You can't really call knowing a response as prejudging.

              Go use the n word somewhere...you know what will happen.
              Go call an african american 'boy'...you know what will happen.

              If you are a white male in america you are personally responsible for every injustice that has ever happened to every minority in the history of the world. Anything you say that has to do with race, no matter what the context, and you'll usually get treated like a German talking about a Jew.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871938].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                If you are a white male in america you are personally responsible for every injustice that has ever happened to every minority in the history of the world. Anything you say that has to do with race, no matter what the context, and you'll usually get treated like a German talking about a Jew.
                WOW - that is quite the over-reaching statement. "Every" injustice throughout world history? Really Mike? Lemme get this straight - when the Japanese forced up to 400,000 women as young as 11 into being "comfort women" during the Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and all through WWII, this all falls on the white males in America? Feeling personally responsible for this atrocity, are ya? Keeping you up at night, is it?

                Dude, spare me the "I'm-A-White-Male-In-America-Whoa-Is-Me" pity party. If you personally are feeling responsible for every injustice perpetrated to every minority in the history of the world, you need serious psychological help that no Warrior Forum can provide. Back away from your laptop and call a crisis help line. Good luck and may God be with you.
                Signature

                Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872040].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                  The latest round of replies brought to mind an incident from about 30 years ago...

                  At the time, I drove one of those custom vans - the kind with the carpet and furniture in the back, and a loud stereo system. I was supposed to pick up one of my coworkers on the way. He was black, and had a black roommate who despised whites in general.

                  That night, we'd gotten a few inches of snow, and the streets were pretty slick. After my coworker got in the van, we tried to back out of the driveway and managed to get hung up on a pile of snow someone had shoveled back into the street.

                  Brian went inside to ask his roommate to help us push the van to get going again. When the roommate saw me, he went ballistic about how he wasn't about to push some white cracker's van.

                  I told him that was fine. Since he probably wasn't going to let me use his phone to call the auto club, I'd have to start knocking on his neighbors' doors to find a phone (no cell phones in that day). And since the snowfall would likely make for at least a two hour delay, we'd pass the time listening to the stereo. Only the only 8-tracks I had in the van were some that I was supposed to drop off at my folks' house that night after work.

                  So which did he prefer? Pat Boone or the Carpenters?

                  He preferred to push...
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872167].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                    So which did he prefer? Pat Boone or the Carpenters?

                    He preferred to push...
                    OK, now ***THIS*** is FUNNY! 8-)
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872853].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                  Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                  WOW - that is quite the over-reaching statement. "Every" injustice throughout world history? Really Mike? Lemme get this straight - when the Japanese forced up to 400,000 women as young as 11 into being "comfort women" during the Sino-Japanese War in 1937 and all through WWII, this all falls on the white males in America? Feeling personally responsible for this atrocity, are ya? Keeping you up at night, is it?

                  Dude, spare me the "I'm-A-White-Male-In-America-Whoa-Is-Me" pity party. If you personally are feeling responsible for every injustice perpetrated to every minority in the history of the world, you need serious psychological help that no Warrior Forum can provide. Back away from your laptop and call a crisis help line. Good luck and may God be with you.
                  I personally dont feel responsible for a damn thing. However there is quite a bit of bias towards whites in this country.

                  If you dont think there is a discrimination of sorts then you either dont leave your house or you dont want to acknowledge it.

                  Believe me, if you leave the cultural epicenter Iowa is known to be, you'll find things are a little bit different when you aren't on the farm Opie.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872239].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                    Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                    I personally dont feel responsible for a damn thing. Believe me, if you leave the cultural epicenter Iowa is known to be, you'll find things are a little bit different when you aren't on the farm Opie.

                    That's not what you said in your previous post. You said "If you are a white male in america you are personally responsible for every injustice that has ever happened to every minority in the history of the world."

                    Your assumption that I live on a farm in Iowa is incorrect. I don't. I live in the 2nd largest city in Iowa, but I've only been here a few years. I've lived in Atlanta, Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, and some other cities. So from a cultural perspective, I've been around.

                    And please don't call me Opie. Thanks.
                    Signature

                    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872349].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                      That's not what you said in your previous post. You said "If you are a white male in america you are personally responsible for every injustice that has ever happened to every minority in the history of the world."

                      Your assumption that I live on a farm in Iowa is incorrect. I don't. I live in the 2nd largest city in Iowa, but I've only been here a few years. I've lived in Atlanta, Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, and some other cities. So from a cultural perspective, I've been around.

                      And please don't call me Opie. Thanks.
                      1. Dont take things so literally. That was a facetious response.

                      2. I dont care if you live in the taj mahal in the middle of iowa the perspective of someone who lives in state that has a 91% white population is probably going to have a skewed point of view of how whites are percieved.

                      Come hang out in florida for a bit, lets go down to Miami tell the cholos down there you want to hang out...cause we're all in it together...or the fellas over in the s. side of st. pete.

                      After you get back from the hospital, you can tell me how that worked out for you.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872424].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                        2. I dont care if you live in the taj mahal in the middle of iowa the perspective of someone who lives in state that has a 91% white population is probably going to have a skewed point of view of how whites are percieved.
                        That's only relevant if the totality of my experiences were limited to living in a state that has a 91% white population. Since I've only lived here 3 years and the other 40 years I lived in metropolitan areas, the point you are trying to make does not really apply to me.

                        Kim
                        I think we've kinda reached a point of diminishing returns. People's opinions about this issue in general and me specifically are entrenched and are not gonna change. Not that they necessarily need to change.

                        And while I've had an amusing time needling Mike a little, I do understand his position. It really is very difficult to be a white male in America these days. The halcyon days in the '50's where white males pretty much ran the country and controlled almost 100% of everything are, sadly, long gone. Socialist institutions like Affirmative Action, Title IX, EOC, non-discriminatory legislation, the 19th Amendment, the Civil Rights Act have crippled this country to the point that white males in America pretty much run the country and control almost 93% of everything.

                        So I want to join hands with Mike (in a manly way, not in a gay way) and work to bring America back to a place where this country truly belongs - the 19th century.
                        Signature

                        Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                        http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872535].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                      That's not what you said in your previous post. You said "If you are a white male in america you are personally responsible for every injustice that has ever happened to every minority in the history of the world."

                      Your assumption that I live on a farm in Iowa is incorrect. I don't. I live in the 2nd largest city in Iowa, but I've only been here a few years. I've lived in Atlanta, Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, and some other cities. So from a cultural perspective, I've been around.

                      And please don't call me Opie. Thanks.
                      I have probably been in FAR more areas than you. In fact, I have been in Atlanta, Washington, DC, Chicago, New York as well! I have also been in Iowa, California, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Virginia, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Michigan, Lousiana, Indiana, etc....

                      It takes more than THAT to say you have been around from a cultural perspective. HECK, I lived for a time with a devout jew from Iran, and Devout Buddhists from japan! I have been to an irish wake, a jewish synagogue, and a buddist temple. I learned german and danish and spoke it in the appropriate countries. I also went to switzerland.

                      It is CLEAR that Michael Motley was stating NOT that HE felt that way, but that that is how the PC crowd feels.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872887].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
              Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

              I don't agree. It doesn't say you're a racist. It says you have an irrational intimidation based solely on how you THINK a person (whom you don't know) will react.

              That's not racist behavior. IMHO it's closer to prejudicial behavior because you are pre-judging someone's reaction.

              BTW, having lived in America for the majority of my life and living and working around white people for all of my life, I can say that this behavior has not been demonstrated by the "average" white guys that I have been around. Pointing out the color of a guy to describe him automatically brands you a bold-face racist? That's not my America.

              Your mileage may vary.
              That's what you experience at your end. It's different at work where you are all working together for the same end and HAVE to communicate to get the job done. You learn not only to tolerate others that you might never have spoken to otherwise but even to (OMG!) LIKE each other or dislike on the basis of how well the other performs their work and how easy and enjoyable they are to work with.

              But you can trust that just generally out in the public world right now, whites are taking a beating if they even NOTICE that someone else is black, hispanic, oriental, etc. IF we disagree with anything our present President does, no matter how destructive, we get called bigots for it. Not by all mind you - but by quite a few. I think it reveals the own bigotry of the person screaming about it. I have a habit of pointing out to people who accuse me of bigotry because I don't like something someone of a different race is doing that to be forced to like someone on the basis of their color is just as overtly bigoted as not liking someone on the sole basis of their color. IT will be a cold day in hell before someone intimidates me to accept ideas and actions from someone of another color that I wouldn't accept from someone of my own color.

              When I get in someone's face for something and they come back with "You're just a bigot" my answer is "Not even - you'd suck just as bad if you were white". LOL. But many people are intimidated by this political PC BS. They are afraid to speak what they think because they are afraid they will end up in court being sued for everything they worked to get. I don't intimidate easily - I don't care if you're my color or another, if I feel like saying something to you, I'm going to say it and if you wanna crap your pants over it I just figure it's you that needs to change your drawers or live with the stink, not me. LOL.
              Signature

              Sal
              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
              Beyond the Path

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872671].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author shabit87
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Do you know how bad it is? Just YESTERDAY I ordered a pizza from a black man. I think NO other worker in the restaurant was black. A white woman came to ask me if I was being helped. I said well, "I asked this man for a pizza. I forget his name, but I think it begins with a C.". I then motioned about his hair being different. She offered up a name, but I couldn't be sure. I figured it was better to just say it than go hungry(She was goimng to check, and I had only like 10 minutes before I would have to say forget it). I said "Well, I should say he is black, but you know, PC and all...".

        HECK, I stumble with the terms OBESE, FAT, BALD, etc... BTW I'm bald AND pretty heavy set.

        But if you say someone is black, it is sometimes seen as singling them out, etc... In this case it was one word that IMMEDIATELY described him. BTW he apparently put the order in, I got my pizza,etc... I would have been JUST as concerned with ANYONE else. The color of his skin, etc... was ONLY to describe, and meant NOTHING else.

        Steve
        I use the color of someones skin to describe them...I can understand that it is a vital descriptive part. Doesn't bother me a bit when someone describes me using the color of my skin. It's when its being used against me, that I start having a problem. But you were just giving him his credit. You wanted him to be praised for his help. Nothing at all wrong with that

        P.S. I know this has to do with teachers, but I just had to comment on Steve's post
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835202].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by shabit87 View Post

          I use the color of someones skin to describe them...I can understand that it is a vital descriptive part. Doesn't bother me a bit when someone describes me using the color of my skin. It's when its being used against me, that I start having a problem. But you were just giving him his credit. You wanted him to be praised for his help. Nothing at all wrong with that

          P.S. I know this has to do with teachers, but I just had to comment on Steve's post
          It's nice to hear you say that. I have just had a LOT of people, even WHITES, act differently.

          If I said more, it might be misunderstood, so I will leave it at that.

          steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835406].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author snowprincess
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Do you know how bad it is? Just YESTERDAY I ordered a pizza from a black man. I think NO other worker in the restaurant was black. A white woman came to ask me if I was being helped. I said well, "I asked this man for a pizza. I forget his name, but I think it begins with a C.". I then motioned about his hair being different. She offered up a name, but I couldn't be sure. I figured it was better to just say it than go hungry(She was goimng to check, and I had only like 10 minutes before I would have to say forget it). I said "Well, I should say he is black, but you know, PC and all...".

        HECK, I stumble with the terms OBESE, FAT, BALD, etc... BTW I'm bald AND pretty heavy set.

        But if you say someone is black, it is sometimes seen as singling them out, etc... In this case it was one word that IMMEDIATELY described him. BTW he apparently put the order in, I got my pizza,etc... I would have been JUST as concerned with ANYONE else. The color of his skin, etc... was ONLY to describe, and meant NOTHING else.

        Steve
        I have to agree with you here. The thing most of us want, whether it be for the skinny or fat, black or white, is equality, but when we are scared to use something like this as nothing more than even a descriptive term, when is this ever going to be fully acheived? For any of us.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1866861].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Jo W
      Originally Posted by Brightman View Post




      Race is such a controversial subject. You can speak on retards, geeks, muscle heads, the fat, the skinny, the handicapped, laugh at the ugly, call the beautiful names, short people, tall people, women, men, kids, religious slanders.

      But speak on race and guns are drawn and wars begin. lol.
      Yes! All of those things come down to disrespect; any form of disrespect is wrong, no matter who it's by. I believe the teachers may not have MEANT disrespect, but made poor choices.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1860148].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Originally Posted by Brightman View Post

      I have to say that I do believe if the white bashing...
      What "white bashing" are you referring to?


      Ah. Race is such a controversial subject. You can speak on retards, geeks, muscle heads, the fat, the skinny, the handicapped, laugh at the ugly, call the beautiful names, short people, tall people, women, men, kids, religious slanders.
      Perhaps religious slanders, calling people with mental disabilities "retards", sexist slanders etc... is OK with you, but it is not to most people.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861285].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    > Would the parties named have been more appropriate had the teachers in question been black?

    NO BESIDES, the pictures WERE of famous BLACK people! Earlier, some called them HEROS! They talk about bad WHITE people, so talking about bad black people is only FAIR!

    > Would there have been any need for suspensions or an investigation?

    NO! HECK, they don't punish "teachers" for failing to do their jobs! Why should they punish because they think a topic choice could have been better!?

    > Would there have been the same outrage had the teachers picked people like Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan or other violently anti-white "black leaders"?

    AGAIN, some consider them HEROS!

    > Why is "Black History Month" always a conciliatory celebration of only the best parts of black history, rather than a chance to examine all of black history?

    > And finally, by any chance would Ms. Pollard-Terry be black?

    I was GOING to say PROBABLY! I searched! And the answer is.....

    YES, SHE IS!

    I tied her to the person listed HERE: Hiding the White Branch in the Black Family Tree : NPR

    HERE is the part referring to HER:

    A lot of black Americans have similar reactions. Many are ambivalent about having white ancestors, and they don't spend much time hunting for them.

    Los Angeles journalist Gayle Pollard-Terry says that growing up, she always wondered why her mother would never admit where her fair skin and straight hair came from.

    "My mother didn't tell me until I was well into middle-aged that her grandfather was white. She talked about it a little bit after Strom Thurmond's daughter, Mrs. Williams, came forward," Pollard-Terry said.

    Pollard-Terry says that the revelation by Essie Mae Washington Williams that she is Strom Thurmond's daughter, made it easier for her mother to acknowledge that her own grandfather was white. But it didn't make her any more interested in including him in the family tree.

    "It was almost as if she was embarrassed that our family had white blood," Pollard-Terry said.
    SO, not only is she BLACK, she is embarassed about having white ancestry!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833435].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Dalun
    black, white, brown, tan, pale, pink, bronze, gold doesnt matter to me. if a person cant figure out who am i talking about based on description then i refer to the skin color of the person. who cares about PC, i call them as i see them. skin color doesnt determine how a person is but it does influence who the person associates with.

    it seems that everyone is so sensitive about what people say to them and are PC. as long as what people are saying isnt offensive or intentional then there is no need to get all upset. i hang around people of all skin colors everyday, it doesnt mean i have to be careful about what i say.

    besides there is no such thing as different races of humans, just different skin color and cultural background.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1833980].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Hey, I SAID it was STUPID. It isn't MY idea. People want to be associated with a group ONLy when it suits them.

    HECK, THINK ABOUT IT! THAT is why Gayle Pollard-Terry doesn't make HER race known, unless it suts her. THAT iis why she doesn't like having white ancesters. THAT is why they fired those 3 teachers. THAT is why they mentioned that the 3 teachers were white. HECK, maybe some had BLACK ancesters! THAT is why it is illegal to even ASK the race of someone in a hiring situation.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1834016].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    The fact that they mentioned the race of the people who just got fired will make an excellent reverse discrimination suit. If whites are not allowed to mention that another person is black, then they have absolutely no right to indicate the persons fired were white.

    My sister was a teacher's aid in CA while she worked on getting her certificate. There was a little black boy that was continually disturbing the class and being disruptive so she put him in the corner and was promptly fired for discrimination.

    I don't care who wants to hate me for being white - if you think because you are a different color from me that I have to walk on eggshells so that you can be privileged, you can go take a flying F*** at a rolling donut. If the person I am talking about is Mexican, black, or Oriental and I need to use that label to make someone see who I am talking about, that's what's getting used. It is complete idiocy to be so scared to open your mouth that communication is hindered.

    Affirmative action has gotten way out of control. Political Correctness has gone way out of control.

    A friend of mine and I got to be friends when one day she spouted about "I wish people would quit telling me to go back to Africa, I've never been to Africa". I looked at her and said "Yeah, I know what ya mean. I've never had a slave either".

    All that PC is doing is keeping people enemies. You can't understand those you can't talk to without fear and caution.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1834189].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      A friend of mine and I got to be friends when one day she spouted about "I wish people would quit telling me to go back to Africa, I've never been to Africa". I looked at her and said "Yeah, I know what ya mean. I've never had a slave either".
      GOOD COME BACK! My mother's and Father's families DID come here quite some time ago. I tracked it back like 3 generations. NO record of any slave owners, etc...

      And WHO is telling her to go back to africa? I could only see that happening if they are crass, and she is not that polite either. Still, it IS interesting that some even today, and especially in the 70s, seemed to love the idea of going to africa. The US might not be that great, but the chances of dying a hideous death because of something as simple as an insect bite is not nearly as likely as it is in Africa.

      The fact is that people that are born into families that have assimilated to the US are probably going to be more comfortable in the US than anywhere else. ESPECIALLY more than some place as foreign as africa.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835161].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

        Not true. That's what History class is for. The purpose of those parades is an opportunity to promote a positive African American experience. By the same token, you won't see Birmingham, AL celebrate their birthday by plastering the city with pictures of Bull Conner billy clubbing "Colored Folk" or spraying them with water cannons.
        Rob , you still forgot a word. That's what History class is supposed to be for. And you still have a few issues of your own.

        When I said that OJ Simpson may have earned a place in that parade, you immediately assumed I was talking about the double murderer who later went to jail for armed robbery. Is it possible that I might have been talking about the California kid who won a Heisman Trophy and went on to become the first NFL player to rush for 2,000 yards? Those accomplishments, at least in my eyes, would have been worthy of a place in that parade.

        Just because OJ went on to small roles in mediocre movies and to thoroughly **** up his life doesn't change his other accomplishments.

        Same with Malcolm X. Celebrate the mature man who realized that "kill whitey" wasn't going to work. Not the hate monger who blew stuff up.

        History text books are not the same as history. They are history as seen through the eyes and agendas of the people who write the textbooks. The American Civil War (or the 'War of Northern Aggression' if you listen to a few old timers down here) was not a holy crusade against slavery. It was mainly about economics, and policies that favored the industrialized north at the expense of the agrarian south. Try finding that in any elementary school level history book.

        Before you rip into me for being just another dumb white guy, check your own attitudes, pal...
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835225].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Is it possible that I might have been talking about the California kid who won a Heisman Trophy and went on to become the first NFL player to rush for 2,000 yards?
          Um, no. Not in the least.

          We all know that when someone utters the words "OJ Simpson", the first thing people will think about are the double murders. Most young people don't remember his gridiron exploits because they weren't even BORN when he played. Their first frame of reference are the murders.

          So no, I do not believe that you were referring to him as a Heisman Trophy winner. And for you to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous and at worst a bold face lie.

          FYI, I'm done with this thread. Y'all can have at it, and I'll just stick to the reason I came here - to learn about IM. So JohnMcCabe, seasoned, HeySal and all the rest of y'all can post to your heart's content without worrying about me jumping in to offer my two cents.

          Later.
          Signature

          Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
          http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835302].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Kay King
            FYI, I'm done with this thread. Y'all can have at it, and I'll just stick to the reason I came here - to learn about IM.
            You're in the OT section - where we do have at it. If you can't take opinions of others without getting bent out of shape...shouldn't be in this section. This is the "bar" of the WF.
            Signature
            Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog
            ***
            One secret to happiness is to let every situation be
            what it is instead of what you think it should be.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835386].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

            Um, no. Not in the least.

            We all know that when someone utters the words "OJ Simpson", the first thing people will think about are the double murders. Most young people don't remember his gridiron exploits because they weren't even BORN when he played. Their first frame of reference are the murders.

            So no, I do not believe that you were referring to him as a Heisman Trophy winner. And for you to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous and at worst a bold face lie.

            FYI, I'm done with this thread. Y'all can have at it, and I'll just stick to the reason I came here - to learn about IM. So JohnMcCabe, seasoned, HeySal and all the rest of y'all can post to your heart's content without worrying about me jumping in to offer my two cents.

            Later.
            TOO BAD he left! I was going to say OK, we can forget about willie mayes, MLK, etc....

            You know, I once mad a RELIGIOUS comment about Martin Luther, and a JERK, JEWISH no less, "corrected" me, and said "Marting Luther KING". Martin Luther died over 400 years ago. MLK never started a religion, let alone the LUTHERAN religion, OR standardized the german language. It is crazy anyone could confuse the two.

            The fact is that MANY "heros" were latter denigrated.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835449].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author KimW
            Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

            Um, no. Not in the least.

            We all know that when someone utters the words "OJ Simpson", the first thing people will think about are the double murders. Most young people don't remember his gridiron exploits because they weren't even BORN when he played. Their first frame of reference are the murders.

            So no, I do not believe that you were referring to him as a Heisman Trophy winner. And for you to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous and at worst a bold face lie.

            FYI, I'm done with this thread. Y'all can have at it, and I'll just stick to the reason I came here - to learn about IM. So JohnMcCabe, seasoned, HeySal and all the rest of y'all can post to your heart's content without worrying about me jumping in to offer my two cents.

            Later.

            Cya! Don't let the door hit ya on the way out!
            Signature

            Read A Post.
            Subscribe to a Newsletter
            KimWinfrey.Com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835496].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

            Um, no. Not in the least.

            We all know that when someone utters the words "OJ Simpson", the first thing people will think about are the double murders. Most young people don't remember his gridiron exploits because they weren't even BORN when he played. Their first frame of reference are the murders.

            So no, I do not believe that you were referring to him as a Heisman Trophy winner. And for you to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous and at worst a bold face lie.

            FYI, I'm done with this thread. Y'all can have at it, and I'll just stick to the reason I came here - to learn about IM. So JohnMcCabe, seasoned, HeySal and all the rest of y'all can post to your heart's content without worrying about me jumping in to offer my two cents.

            Later.
            What, me worry?:rolleyes:

            Frankly, since he was obviously reading my mind, I'm glad he's gone. It's crowded enough in here as it is...

            Just in case he's peeking in the window...

            Rob, I am old enough to remember OJ for his football career. Maybe I could have picked a different athlete, but Simpson's name is the one from the original story.

            Why just Oprah, Obama, et al? Why not Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson, Walter Payton, Gayle Sayers, Frank Robinson, or any others among a host of black athletes?

            Why not people like BB King, Chuck Barry, Sidney Poitier? Although I don't care much for him personally, why not add someone like Spike Lee? They've all made significant contributions to the arts.

            The difference I see is political. The names I mentioned made their mark for being athletes. Most of the other names have made or are making their mark for being black.

            And if promoting a "positive ethnic experience" is so important, why not have Latino History Month, or Asian History Month, or Caucasian History Month?

            By the time my ancestors made it to America, slavery was long gone and the Americ- oops, the Native Americans were mostly either assimilated or on reservations. So quit trying to make me feel guilty over stuff that happened long before my ancestors had any chance to be involved.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835564].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author seasoned
              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

              The difference I see is political. The names I mentioned made their mark for being athletes. Most of the other names have made or are making their mark for being black.

              And if promoting a "positive ethnic experience" is so important, why not have Latino History Month, or Asian History Month, or Caucasian History Month?

              By the time my ancestors made it to America, slavery was long gone and the Americ- oops, the Native Americans were mostly either assimilated or on reservations. So quit trying to make me feel guilty over stuff that happened long before my ancestors had any chance to be involved.
              At the risk of sounding GULP, religious..... AMEN!!!!!!

              BESIDES, let's say that one's family DID once trade slaves. SO WHAT!?!?!? Is a person to be charged with what their ancestors did? If so, do COUSINS count? Because, IF SO, a lot of blacks are guilty of black slavery. How many believe in adam/eve, for example? Let's be angry with people that are CURRENTLY bad, or have a questionable PERSONAL history. HECK, I don't even want to be associated with what my mother did. Otherwise, reginald denny forgave the guy that struck him, NOT the mother, father, brothers, cousins, etc.... How many should pay for THAT crime? He may even have kids.

              The fact is that I would bet most whites would NOT want slavery back and would NOT want slaves. Hey, I would have been happy if it never happened in the first place.

              Oh well, before it gets TOO off topic, all I, and others here, are saying is that we should be reasonable with our reaction to things like what the teachers did. Frankly, I don't think they should be doing things like this ANYWAY! They should have picked a NEUTRAL topic. one that all have a chance in perceiving the SAME way. WHO CARES if it is ....? They don't celebrate Christmas. Whites don't have any such day, etc.... TV and other media are fine with biographies, movies, etc... showing how Blacks contributed to society, etc... And if they are going to fire teachers it should be because they didn't do their jobs. Black, white, latino, etc.... should be held to the SAME standard.

              Steve
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1835988].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author HeySal
            Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

            Um, no. Not in the least.

            We all know that when someone utters the words "OJ Simpson", the first thing people will think about are the double murders. Most young people don't remember his gridiron exploits because they weren't even BORN when he played. Their first frame of reference are the murders.

            So no, I do not believe that you were referring to him as a Heisman Trophy winner. And for you to claim otherwise is at best disingenuous and at worst a bold face lie.

            FYI, I'm done with this thread. Y'all can have at it, and I'll just stick to the reason I came here - to learn about IM. So JohnMcCabe, seasoned, HeySal and all the rest of y'all can post to your heart's content without worrying about me jumping in to offer my two cents.

            Later.
            OH well -- HELL YEAH - NOW that I have your stinkin' permission...........

            IF blacks don't want us mentioning the fact that everyone in their history wasn't clean and godly pure....then they have absolutely not one right to ever mention the name of any of us HONKY'S that weren't completely upstanding citizens either. Cut Jessie James - and Bonnie and Clyde...no more mention of the Unibomber -- and Don't even think about railing Bush if it's not okay to get into Obama's face when he acts corruptly.

            It is not okay any longer to mention slavery as an evil since many of the Africans brought here were captured by other Native Africans and sold to European and Arab traders. Some tribes kept their own slaves, often those who were prisoners of war. Many tribes killed any white person that ventured into their area, too. Yet here way after any living American has owned a slave, whites are continually pressed to feel guilt for something that people out of our control and living before us did. I don't bite for it. Sorry pal -- Slavery is global and has been practiced EVERYWHERE at one time or another so the guilt trip stops here. If you are going to crap all over about your greatgrandaddy being a slave of my greatgranddaddy - I kinda think it's time you got into records and find out who it was that sold your greatgranddaddy to the traders. And I am very interested in why that part of history is ignored when the fact that Europeans traded slaves has been held in the limelight for so long.

            AND THAT is what the real idiocy of PC is all about. It allows for certain groups to continue to seek privilege and hold very strong prejudiced views - while suppressing the ability of other groups to even mention the fact that real events occurred and real people that are all different colors can be totally insane or evil.

            You have fun over there in fantasy land, Affiliate Rob, and thanks again for the permission to keep on doing what we were doin' long before you ever heard of the forum and will be doing long after you wander off again.
            Signature

            Sal
            When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
            Beyond the Path

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1836342].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

              Blah, blah, blah, blah . . . .
              You have fun over there in fantasy land, Affiliate Rob, and thanks again for the permission to keep on doing what we were doin' long before you ever heard of the forum and will be doing long after you wander off again.
              Geez. Y'all have taken what I've said, totally misconstrued it, and gone off on tangents. Especially HeySal. What you just posted made absolutely no sense at all and certainly does not apply to me.

              Mr. Straw, meet Mr. Dog.
              Signature

              Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
              http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1858267].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Caritas
                Hello:

                If you are interested in history and the history of slavery in particular, I suggest reading Webster Tarpley's work. His book "Against Oligarchy" is on his site at Against Oligarchy TARPLEY.net .

                The first essay is called "The Venetian Conspiracy" and includes the following:

                "These families [the oligarchs - Caritas] and the state they built grew rich through their parasitizing of trade, especially East-West trade, which came to flow overwhelmingly through the Rialto markets. But there is a deeper reality, one which even derogatory stories about spice merchants are designed to mask. The primary basis for Venetian opulence was slavery. This slavery was practiced as a matter of course against Saracens, Mongols, Turks, and other non-Christians. In addition, it is conclusively documented that it was a matter of standard Venetian practice to sell Christians into slavery. This included Italians and Greeks, who were most highly valued as galley slaves. It included Germans and Russians, the latter being shipped in from Tana, the Venetian outpost at the mouth of the Don, in the farthest corner of the Sea of Azov. At a later time, black Africans were added to the list and rapidly became a fad among the nobility of the republic.

                THE POLITICAL ECONOMY OF SLAVERY
                During the years of the Venetian overseas empire, islands like Crete, Cyprus, Corfu, Naxos, and smaller holdings in the Aegean were routinely worked by slave labor, either directly under the Venetian regime, or under the private administration of a Venetian oligarchical clan like the Corner, who owed their riches to such slavery. In later centuries, the harems of the entire Ottoman Empire, from the Balkans to Morocco, were stocked by Venetian slaves. The shock troops of the Ottoman Turkish armies, the Janissaries, were also largely provided by Venetian merchants. A section of the Venetian waterfront is still called Riva Degli Schiavoni - slaves' dock."
                [the section continues - Caritas]

                I had heard about the Vikings selling captives from British Isles (e.g. Scots) into slavery in Byzantium. I wondered how they did that. My guess is they sold them to the Venetians via the same route the Russians and Germans used.

                Webster Tarpley is an historian and journalist who effectively applies his intellectual and academic skills to world politics and economics. He is well worth listening to.

                Caritas
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1858616].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                Geez. Y'all have taken what I've said, totally misconstrued it, and gone off on tangents. Especially HeySal. What you just posted made absolutely no sense at all and certainly does not apply to me.

                Mr. Straw, meet Mr. Dog.
                AR,

                We ALL see the history of your posts here. She made PERFECT sense! OK, since you are back now.... What about willie mayes, MLK, etc....? I mean in YOUR mind, they don't exist anymore, so why talk about them?
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1860913].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  AR,
                  We ALL see the history of your posts here. She made PERFECT sense! OK, since you are back now.... What about willie mayes, MLK, etc....? I mean in YOUR mind, they don't exist anymore, so why talk about them?
                  seasoned,

                  Maybe you read my earlier posts, but you and some others clearly did not comprehend what I was saying. So consider this my definitive post about this issue.

                  I feel the teachers were either ignorant, mischievous, or racist - take your pick. I'm comfortable with either one of the three. To pick those people (OJ, RuPaul, and Dennis Rodman) as African American representatives in a Black History parade is reprehensible. Think about this for just a second - of all the exemplary African American historical figures that one could pick, they actually thought that a jailed convict who is widely thought of as a double murderer (OJ), a female impersonator (RuPaul), and a cross-dressing basketball player (Rodman) was, like, a GOOD thing?

                  And you and some (not all) people here apparently agree with them? That is simply amazing to me.

                  And for those who have said that I only want positive things said about Black people all the time, and decrying that we are a little too PC . . . well, that is NOT true and I NEVER said that. This is something that those of you who THINK I feel that way pretty much pulled out of your arses I think that a frank and open discussion about ANY criminal element or fringe group in an educational setting is a fine. But a Black History Month parade is NOT, in my humble opinion, the proper setting. Besides, these are little kids. There is a reason why, in most schools, they don't talk about Emmit Till or the murders of John Chaney, Andrew Goodman and Micheal Schwerner until high school. Kids can't wrap their minds around that stuff.

                  How 'bout this? How 'bout on Columbus Day when a city has a parade honoring Italian Americans, we send three elementary kids to the parade, one kid carrying a big picture of the Gambino Crime Family, another kid carrying a picture depicting a member of Columbus's crew raping Native women, and, let's say, the third kid carrying a picture of John Wayne Gacy (his Mom was Italian). I would have the exact same outrage, and Italian Americans would be justifiably outraged as well.

                  But not you, seasoned. Uh-uh. Nope. You, SayHey, John McCabe and a few (not all) others here would think that was a GOOD thing. And for anyone who would be aghast at this, well I guess they are just a little too PC.

                  Simply freakin' amazing.
                  Signature

                  Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                  http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865445].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                    I feel the teachers were either ignorant, mischievous, or racist - take your pick. I'm comfortable with either one of the three.
                    In more general terms, you mean STUPID, a TROUBLE MAKER, or RACIST BIGOT. I guess, given the attitude and audience, all three might as well be the SAME thing.

                    Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                    To pick those people (OJ, RuPaul, and Dennis Rodman) as African American representatives in a Black History parade is reprehensible. Think about this for just a second - of all the exemplary African American historical figures that one could pick, they actually thought that a jailed convict who is widely thought of as a double murderer (OJ), a female impersonator (RuPaul), and a cross-dressing basketball player (Rodman) was, like, a GOOD thing?
                    Hey, it is called black HISTORY, Not Good black history, etc... And had this happened 15 years or so earlier, only RU PAUL might be mentioned. And SOME, EVEN TODAY, would take umbrage at your saying anything against rupaul, and consider you to be "homophobic" or something.

                    Did you know they tried to setup a holiday honoring Michael jackson and consider him a genius, etc.... Even though OTHERS may say he has some of the worst aspects of the three you mentioned!?!?!?!?


                    Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                    How 'bout on Columbus Day when a city has a parade honoring Italian Americans, we send three elementary kids to the parade, one kid carrying a big picture of the Gambino Crime Family, another kid carrying a picture depicting a member of Columbus's crew raping Native women, and, let's say, the third kid carrying a picture of John Wayne Gacy (his Mom was Italian). I would have the exact same outrage, and Italian Americans would be justifiably outraged as well.
                    HEY, some HAVE done similar things on columbus day, because of what they now say about how he treated the american indians, etc..., There is a BIG difference you fail to mention! Having children talk about those three on black history month is NOT the same thing! What you mention about columbus day would be akin to mentioning those three on MLK day! Am I against THAT? YEP!

                    NOW, if they had an ITALIAN history month, some might talk about al cappone, the mafia, etc... OK. HEY, they do that ANYWAY. And I CAN'T be the only one that sees how Tauron(sp?) on caprica is like ITALY, and many there are like the mafia. Heck, recently another SERIES got some flack because it makes italians look bad.

                    For the record, I don't know that I have any italian relatives, but I have had italian friends. EVEN ones that belong to families that had ties to the mafia. I'm certainly not trying to denigrate them.

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869184].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      They have Italian history month in October. You know what they concentrate on? Yep, the good things Italians have done:

                      "Every year the U.S. president signs an executive order designating the month of October as National Italian American Heritage Month. Coinciding with the festivities surrounding Columbus Day, the proclamation is recognition of the many achievements, contributions, and successes of Americans of Italian descent as well as Italians in America."

                      National Italian American Heritage Month

                      There is also an Irish history month each March and guess what? It was "created to honor the achievements of Irish immigrants and their descendants, living in the United States of America"

                      Irish-American Heritage Month - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      There's also an Asian Pacific Heritage month each May. It's really weird because this ALSO focuses on "the achievements and contributions of Asian and Pacific Americans".

                      Asian Pacific American Heritage Month - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

                      It's really unbelievable that some of you can't come to grips as to what these history/heritage months are about. They all focus on celebrating the achievements, contributions and successes of each group of people. How idiotic it is to think there should be any sort of focus of negative examples within each group. It's laughable really. To have only the focus on positive role models and examples is just plain common sense thinking folks.

                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


                      NOW, if they had an ITALIAN history month

                      Steve
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869343].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        It's really unbelievable that some of you can't come to grips as to what these history/heritage months are about. They all focus on celebrating the achievements, contributions and successes of each group of people. How idiotic it is to think there should be any sort of focus of negative examples within each group. It's laughable really. To have only the focus on positive role models and examples is just plain common sense thinking folks.
                        I'm not going to argue that we should be "celebrating" the negative examples of each group. My take is that with some groups, particularly people of color, the definition of "positive role models and examples" is way too narrow sometimes, and that any instance of mistaken or poor judgment by anyone of another race (particularly whites) is a sign of racism. And often the reaction is over the top.

                        In this case, three white teachers made questionable judgments about who should be featured for a black history parade. Rather than simply reprimand the teachers, or insist that they explain their choices, they were suspended.

                        Mention "black history" and what names always bubble to the top? Barack Obama, who's major contributions so far consist of picking a black father and not being George Bush. Oprah Winfrey, who's major accomplishments seem to be amassing great wealth and putting her name and picture on almost as many things as Donald Trump.

                        Otherwise you get mainly people known for their involvement in racial issues - Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, and so on. Robinson was a marvelous baseball player, yet he's mainly known for being the first Negro player in the major leagues (he wouldn't become 'black' for several more years).

                        If these folks truly want to celebrate black history and heritage, they should seek out figures in history known for what they achieved, rather than the melanin content of their skin. (Where have I heard something like that before?)
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869546].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          Sure, just as you said in an earlier post "Most of the other names have made or are making their mark for being black." Gee, I didn't know being black can make someone famous since there's a few billion other black people on this planet! That's what gets me about people who say Obama only won because he is black. What? Other blacks have run for President and lost. Other blacks are in politics and will never become President ( think Steele ). There's a real bias and flaw to this thinking that Obama has never accomplished anything and only became President because of his skin color. It's BS.


                          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                          Mention "black history" and what names always bubble to the top? Barack Obama, who's major contributions so far consist of picking a black father and not being George Bush. Oprah Winfrey, who's major accomplishments seem to be amassing great wealth and putting her name and picture on almost as many things as Donald Trump.

                          Otherwise you get mainly people known for their involvement in racial issues - Dr. King, Rosa Parks, Jackie Robinson, and so on. Robinson was a marvelous baseball player, yet he's mainly known for being the first Negro player in the major leagues (he wouldn't become 'black' for several more years).

                          If these folks truly want to celebrate black history and heritage, they should seek out figures in history known for what they achieved, rather than the melanin content of their skin. (Where have I heard something like that before?)
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869712].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                            RuPaul is a female impersonator? LOL - I didn't know.

                            There was a famous white one back when I was in my teens too, but I don't remember his name.
                            Not trying to age you Sal, but Uncle Miltie (Milton Berle) comes to mind.
                            Signature

                            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                            Getting old ain't for sissy's
                            As you are I was, as I am you will be
                            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869791].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                              Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                              Not trying to age you Sal, but Uncle Miltie (Milton Berle) comes to mind.
                              No - Miltie was a comedy act, so was Dom Delouise - I can't remember this guy's name - he played Vagas and was quite well known and popular. They had him do a show or two on All in the Family and Archie was hilarious. They killed him off after a few shows and I don't know whether it was just to write him back out because the show was too controversial or what.

                              Someday I might remember his name but I didn't really pay too much attention back then - I just remember one of the write ups on him around the time he was on All In The Family.
                              Signature

                              Sal
                              When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                              Beyond the Path

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870135].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                No - Miltie was a comedy act, so was Dom Delouise - I can't remember this guy's name - he played Vagas and was quite well known and popular. They had him do a show or two on All in the Family and Archie was hilarious. They killed him off after a few shows and I don't know whether it was just to write him back out because the show was too controversial or what.

                                Someday I might remember his name but I didn't really pay too much attention back then - I just remember one of the write ups on him around the time he was on All In The Family.
                                Was it a fat guy?
                                THe only other two that come to mind where a British guy who was Dame somebody or other and a fat guy that was in a lot of the early John Waters movies named Divine.
                                Signature

                                Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870177].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                  Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                                  Was it a fat guy?
                                  THe only other two that come to mind where a British guy who was Dame somebody or other and a fat guy that was in a lot of the early John Waters movies named Divine.
                                  Well I hate to call the guy fat without knowing if there's a Fat people's parade coming up........but yeah he was pretty heavy -- was a singer and had a really nice voice, um...for a chick.
                                  Signature

                                  Sal
                                  When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                  Beyond the Path

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870397].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Kurt
                                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                    Well I hate to call the guy fat without knowing if there's a Fat people's parade coming up........but yeah he was pretty heavy -- was a singer and had a really nice voice, um...for a chick.
                                    The only name I can come up with is "Divine"? I think it was Divine that starred in the Roger Waters movies, but is that the same person that was in All in the Family?

                                    Sorry, I really need to brush up on all the cross-dressing singing men that play fat chicks in grade b movies.
                                    Signature
                                    Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
                                    Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870975].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                      The only name I can come up with is "Divine"? I think it was Divine that starred in the Roger Waters movies, but is that the same person that was in All in the Family?

                                      Sorry, I really need to brush up on all the cross-dressing singing men that play fat chicks in grade b movies.
                                      LOL - yeah, I understand, I'm not the expert myself - just remembered as much as I posted. I'm thinking a couple of the guys I used to work with at Fred Astaire Dance Studios could tell me, though.

                                      But hey - I'm too busy relishing the fact that because I proposed that all people involved with slavery should be degraded for it instead of just the white American slave owners that I suddenly am seen as being in support of slavery, to go looking up old co-workers, ya know? LMAO.
                                      Signature

                                      Sal
                                      When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                                      Beyond the Path

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871107].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                      The only name I can come up with is "Divine"? I think it was Divine that starred in the Roger Waters movies, but is that the same person that was in All in the Family?

                                      Sorry, I really need to brush up on all the cross-dressing singing men that play fat chicks in grade b movies.
                                      It's scarey we know what we do about cross dressing fat guys who sing isn't it

                                      By the way Kurt, Roger was the bass player for Pink Floyd, John was the director
                                      Signature

                                      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                                      Getting old ain't for sissy's
                                      As you are I was, as I am you will be
                                      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872276].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                    Was it Shelly Winters?

                                    Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                    Well I hate to call the guy fat without knowing if there's a Fat people's parade coming up........but yeah he was pretty heavy -- was a singer and had a really nice voice, um...for a chick.
                                    Signature
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871583].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author KimW
                                      Originally Posted by Kurt View Post

                                      The only name I can come up with is "Divine"? I think it was Divine that starred in the Roger Waters movies, but is that the same person that was in All in the Family?

                                      Sorry, I really need to brush up on all the cross-dressing singing men that play fat chicks in grade b movies.
                                      Kurt,
                                      Your close but no cigar, I think Roger Waters has something to do with Pink FLoyd. It is, as Thom said, John Waters that made those films, most notably around that time fram with a transvestite named Divine.

                                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                      Was it Shelly Winters?
                                      You were kidding, right? :confused:
                                      Signature

                                      Read A Post.
                                      Subscribe to a Newsletter
                                      KimWinfrey.Com

                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871709].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                        Yeah. Bad joke. Shelly was actually pretty hot when she was younger.

                                        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                                        You were kidding, right? :confused:
                                        Signature
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871776].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                                Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

                                No - Miltie was a comedy act, so was Dom Delouise - I can't remember this guy's name - he played Vagas and was quite well known and popular. They had him do a show or two on All in the Family and Archie was hilarious. They killed him off after a few shows and I don't know whether it was just to write him back out because the show was too controversial or what.

                                Someday I might remember his name but I didn't really pay too much attention back then - I just remember one of the write ups on him around the time he was on All In The Family.
                                Wasn't it a big brunette that kissed archie or something on one of the shows? And then died off later after gettting beat up. The characters name was Beverly lasalle i think
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871741].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                                  Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                                  Wasn't it a big brunette that kissed archie or something on one of the shows? And then died off later after gettting beat up. The characters name was Beverly lasalle i think
                                  OH YEAH, I REMEMBER THAT! Archie thought it was a woman right up until the end! 8-/

                                  Steve
                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1871803].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                            Sure, just as you said in an earlier post "Most of the other names have made or are making their mark for being black." Gee, I didn't know being black can make someone famous since there's a few billion other black people on this planet! That's what gets me about people who say Obama only won because he is black. What? Other blacks have run for President and lost. Other blacks are in politics and will never become President ( think Steele ). There's a real bias and flaw to this thinking that Obama has never accomplished anything and only became President because of his skin color. It's BS.
                            I never said he was elected because he was black. As you say, many other blacks have tried to be president and failed. The one that comes to mind is Jesse Jackson.

                            Tell me what President Obama has accomplished.

                            I really believe Obama could have been elected if he was yellow with purple spots. He rode the same path to the White House that Jimmy Carter did. He was the chosen candidate of the party opposite that of a very unpopular president. Carter was elected because he wasn't Nixon, and Obama because he wasn't Bush (or Clinton). Both came from virtual obscurity.

                            Obama has a Nobel Peace Prize on his resume, but I'm damned if I can figure out what he did besides not being George Bush.

                            Who knows? Maybe Obama will go on to be a great president. Right now, his claim to fame is being the "first African-American POTUS".

                            EDIT: In my earlier post, I never said that the names mentioned were famous for being black alone. What I said is that they are celebrated because they accomplished something AND they were black. The classic example is Jackie Robinson. Is he remembered for his stats or exploits like most other famous baseball players (white, black or otherwise)? No, he's lauded for being the first Negro to play MLB. Why not celebrate the stars of the Negro Leagues, like Satchel Paige?
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1870013].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post


                              Tell me what President Obama has accomplished.
                              OK John, I almost let this question go but ....

                              First of all it's only been a little over a year so you have to expect more to come. That said, to start with it looks like the most important health care legislation in a generation and the first major reform of the industry in decades will become law this weekend. Besides that here is a list:

                              1. Ordered all federal agencies to undertake a study and make recommendations for ways to cut spending

                              2. Ordered a review of all federal operations to identify and cut wasteful spending and practices

                              3. Instituted enforcement for equal pay for women

                              4. Beginning the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq

                              5. Families of fallen soldiers have expenses covered to be on hand when the body arrives at Dover AFB

                              6. Ended media blackout on war casualties; reporting full information

                              7. Ended media blackout on covering the return of fallen soldiers to Dover AFB; the media is now permitted to do so pending adherence to respectful rules and approval of fallen soldier's family

                              8. The White House and federal government are respecting the Freedom of Information Act

                              9. Instructed all federal agencies to promote openness and transparency as much as possible

                              10. Limits on lobbyist's access to the White House

                              11. Limits on White House aides working for lobbyists after their tenure in the administration

                              12. Ended the previous stop-loss policy that kept soldiers in Iraq/Afghanistan longer than their enlistment date

                              13. Phasing out the expensive F-22 war plane and other outdated weapons systems, which weren't even used or needed in Iraq/Afghanistan

                              14. Removed restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research

                              15. Federal support for stem-cell and new biomedical research

                              16. New federal funding for science and research labs

                              17. States are permitted to enact federal fuel efficiency standards above federal standards

                              18. Increased infrastructure spending (roads, bridges, power plants) after years of neglect

                              19. Funds for high-speed, broadband Internet access to K-12 schools

                              20. New funds for school construction

                              21. The prison at Guantanamo Bay is being phased out

                              22. US Auto industry rescue plan

                              23. Housing rescue plan

                              24. $789 billion economic stimulus plan

                              25. The public can meet with federal housing insurers to refinance (the new plan can be completed in one day) a mortgage if they are having trouble paying

                              26. US financial and banking rescue plan

                              27. The secret detention facilities in Eastern Europe and elsewhere are being closed

                              28. Ended the previous policy; the US now has a no torture policy and is in compliance with the Geneva Convention standards

                              29. Better body armor is now being provided to our troops

                              30. The missile defense program is being cut by $1.4 billion in 2010

                              31. Restarted the nuclear nonproliferation talks and building back up the nuclear inspection infrastructure/protocols

                              32. Reengaged in the treaties/agreements to protect the Antarctic

                              33. Reengaged in the agreements/talks on global warming and greenhouse gas emissions

                              34. Visited more countries and met with more world leaders than any president in his first six months in office

                              35. Successful release of US captain held by Somali pirates; authorized the SEALS to do their job

                              36. US Navy increasing patrols off Somali coast

                              37. Attractive tax write-offs for those who buy hybrid automobiles

                              38. Cash for clunkers program offers vouchers to trade in fuel inefficient, polluting old cars for new cars; stimulated auto sales

                              39. Announced plans to purchase fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government

                              40. Expanded the SCHIP program to cover health care for 4 million more children

                              41. Signed national service legislation; expanded national youth service program

                              42. Instituted a new policy on Cuba, allowing Cuban families to return home to visit loved ones

                              43. Ended the previous policy of not regulating and labeling carbon dioxide emissions

                              44. Expanding vaccination programs

                              45. Immediate and efficient response to the floods in North Dakota and other natural disasters

                              46. Closed offshore tax safe havens

                              47. Negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals

                              48. Ended the previous policy of offering tax benefits to corporations who outsource American jobs; the new policy is to promote in-sourcing to bring jobs back

                              49. Ended the previous practice of protecting credit card companies; in place of it are new consumer protections from credit card industry's predatory practices

                              50. Energy producing plants must begin preparing to produce 15% of their energy from renewable sources

                              51. Lower drug costs for seniors

                              52. Ended the previous practice of forbidding Medicare from negotiating with drug manufacturers for cheaper drugs; the federal government is now realizing hundreds of millions in savings

                              53. Increasing pay and benefits for military personnel

                              54. Improved housing for military personnel

                              55. Initiating a new policy to promote federal hiring of military spouses

                              56. Improved conditions at Walter Reed Military Hospital and other military hospitals

                              57. Increasing student loans

                              58. Increasing opportunities in AmeriCorps program

                              59. Sent envoys to Middle East and other parts of the world that had been neglected for years; reengaging in multilateral and bilateral talks and diplomacy

                              60. Established a new cyber security office

                              61. Beginning the process of reforming and restructuring the military 20 years after the Cold War to a more modern fighting force; this includes new procurement policies, increasing size of military, new technology and cyber units and operations, etc.

                              62. Ended previous policy of awarding no-bid defense contracts

                              63. Ordered a review of hurricane and natural disaster preparedness

                              64. Established a National Performance Officer charged with saving the federal government money and making federal operations more efficient

                              65. Students struggling to make college loan payments can have their loans refinanced

                              66. Improving benefits for veterans

                              67. Many more press conferences and town halls and much more media access than previous administration

                              68. Instituted a new focus on mortgage fraud

                              69. The FDA is now regulating tobacco

                              70. Ended previous policy of cutting the FDA and circumventing FDA rules

                              71. Ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations, and reports

                              72. Authorized discussions with North Korea and private mission by Pres. Bill Clinton to secure the release of two Americans held in prisons

                              73. Authorized discussions with Myanmar and mission by Sen. Jim Web to secure the release of an American held captive

                              74. Making more loans available to small businesses

                              75. Established independent commission to make recommendations on slowing the costs of Medicare

                              76. Appointment of first Latina to the Supreme Court

                              77. Authorized construction/opening of additional health centers to care for veterans

                              78. Limited salaries of senior White House aides; cut to $100,000

                              79. Renewed loan guarantees for Israel

                              80. Changed the failing/status quo military command in Afghanistan

                              81. Deployed additional troops to Afghanistan

                              82. New Afghan War policy that limits aerial bombing and prioritizes aid, development of infrastructure, diplomacy, and good government practices by Afghans

                              83. Announced the long-term development of a national energy grid with renewable sources and cleaner, efficient energy production

                              84. Returned money authorized for refurbishment of White House offices and private living quarters

                              85. Paid for redecoration of White House living quarters out of his own pocket

                              86. Held first Seder in White House

                              87. Has put the ball in play for comprehensive immigration reform

                              88. Has announced his intention to push for energy reform

                              99. Has announced his intention to push for education reform
                              Signature
                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879199].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author DA
                            sensitive subject...
                            It's impossible to please everyone.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876517].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
              This argument is just plain ridiculous Sal. Slavery wasn't evil because some Africans participated in it?! Huh?

              Originally Posted by HeySal View Post


              It is not okay any longer to mention slavery as an evil since many of the Africans brought here were captured by other Native Africans and sold to European and Arab traders.
              Signature
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861370].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                This argument is just plain ridiculous Sal. Slavery wasn't evil because some Africans participated in it?! Huh?
                I think you HAVE to realize that she was NOT saying that slavery was not evil. She was saying that OTHER blacks participated, and whites may not have even been the ones to first come up with the idea. HEY, others kept WHITES as slaves earlier.

                And if you are going to talk about history, why not talk about the bad? "white history" HAS talked about bad whites.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861483].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  She DID say slavery can't be called evil because some Africans participated.

                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  I think you HAVE to realize that she was NOT saying that slavery was not evil. She was saying that OTHER blacks participated, and whites may not have even been the ones to first come up with the idea. HEY, others kept WHITES as slaves earlier.

                  And if you are going to talk about history, why not talk about the bad? "white history" HAS talked about bad whites.

                  Steve
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861616].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    She DID say slavery can't be called evil because some Africans participated. It's a ridiculous statement.
                    Maybe one of these days you can explain to me why my computer is showing such a different story. You have to forgive me, I have only been programming computers for about 28 years or so. MY computer says she said:

                    It is not okay any longer to mention slavery as an evil since many of the Africans brought here were captured by other Native Africans and sold to European and Arab traders. Some tribes kept their own slaves, often those who were prisoners of war. Many tribes killed any white person that ventured into their area, too. Yet here way after any living American has owned a slave, whites are continually pressed to feel guilt for something that people out of our control and living before us did. I don't bite for it. Sorry pal -- Slavery is global and has been practiced EVERYWHERE at one time or another so the guilt trip stops here. If you are going to crap all over about your greatgrandaddy being a slave of my greatgranddaddy - I kinda think it's time you got into records and find out who it was that sold your greatgranddaddy to the traders. And I am very interested in why that part of history is ignored when the fact that Europeans traded slaves has been held in the limelight for so long.

                    AND THAT is what the real idiocy of PC is all about. It allows for certain groups to continue to seek privilege and hold very strong prejudiced views - while suppressing the ability of other groups to even mention the fact that real events occurred and real people that are all different colors can be totally insane or evil.
                    So she did NOT say "slavery can't be called evil ". She said "It is not okay any longer to mention slavery as an evil since ...". The two are quite different.

                    And she DOES have a point. I could say more, but...

                    Steve
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861772].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      Come on. It's the same damn thing. You think she has a point? Great. I am not surprised at all that you agree.

                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      So she did NOT say "slavery can't be called evil ". She said "It is not okay any longer to mention slavery as an evil since ...". The two are quite different.

                      And she DOES have a point. I could say more, but...

                      Steve
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861836].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    She DID say slavery can't be called evil because some Africans participated.
                    No what I was saying is that throughout history slavery has existed and one of the things I had rammed at me continually back in Michigan in debates with black bigots (yeah, they exist, it's not a one race phenomenon) was that it's okay to hate whites because of the slavery. None ever mentioned hating the people of their own race that sold them to whites in the first place.

                    What I was saying is things need to be put in perspective on both sides. Is slavery evil? You are damned straight it is. But if you are going to hate people for slavery hate ALL the people involved with it - not just one target group. As I said - nobody alive now was ever a slave or owned one either if they were born and raised here. I've also been told that whites owe blacks restitution if their ancestors owned slaves. Bull ****. None of us have control of who did what in the past so why should any of us have to pay for what others did. If they want restitution - write back to Africa and get the restitution from the people that captured their ancestors and sold them to the traders.

                    It's way past time for us to think about moving on together and leave the past there. None of it matters because we can't change it. It's stupidity to hate each other for what we weren't involved in and can't change - we just have to know what happened and be above letting it happen again.

                    And that's all that these teachers were doing. When we look at white history we look at ALL of it because it, good and bad, is ALL relative to who and what we are today. So when we look at Black history - if we don't look at all of it, we don't understand anything - we just learn who was famous for being awesome and that is NOT the whole story about who we are.

                    These were good teachers who tried to show truth and balance and give perspective. Their fault was they did it in a society that insists on being PC - that would rather be polite and unoffensive than to think, grow, and learn to understand.
                    Signature

                    Sal
                    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
                    Beyond the Path

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865779].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                      But not you, seasoned. Uh-uh. Nope. You, SayHey, John McCabe and a few (not all) others here would think that was a GOOD thing. And for anyone who would be aghast at this, well I guess they are just a little too PC.
                      Rob, I was ready let you slide when you called me disingenuous or a liar, and let you think you could read my mind. But not this time. You, sir, are so full of the byproduct of male bovine digestion that if someone stuck a seed in your ear you could grow flowers.

                      For the record, I'm 52 years old. My first experience of OJ Simpson was the Heisman winner. I watched him set records in the NFL. Had one of those kids carried a picture of Simpson in his USC or Buffalo Bills uniform, it would have been totally appropriate for a Black History parade. The other two "role models" the teachers named are buffoons.

                      Now you presume to look inside my heart and say I would celebrate Gacy. Why not Al Capone? Or the cast of the Jersey Shore?

                      You totally ignored my other points in favor of calling me a liar and a racist. Why did a "journalist" of color who is ashamed of her white ancestors make it a point to draw attention to the idea that three white teachers made poor to questionable choices for a Black History parade? Maybe she was being more than a little disingenuous and racist.

                      In this particular case, it doesn't matter because her staunch defender has proven himself to be either a racist, a reactionary or an idiot, and I'm comfortable with any of the three...
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865882].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                        Rob, I was ready let you slide when you called me disingenuous or a liar, and let you think you could read my mind. But not this time. You, sir, are so full of the byproduct of male bovine digestion that if someone stuck a seed in your ear you could grow flowers.
                        WOW, what (um er..) FLOWERY speech!

                        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                        For the record, I'm 52 years old. My first experience of OJ Simpson was the Heisman winner. I watched him set records in the NFL. Had one of those kids carried a picture of Simpson in his USC or Buffalo Bills uniform, it would have been totally appropriate for a Black History parade. The other two "role models" the teachers named are buffoons.
                        I actually agree with you here, but some HAVE liked Rodman! And OLDER records mean a LOT more than they do today. Too many today DO cheat. EVEN arnold swartzenegger admitted to cheating, though he tries to mitigate it buy saying it was just to refine things.

                        Basically what I am saying is that any records oj simpson set are more likely to be legitimate than many set today, simply because such drugs/hormones were not as widely available, etc...

                        Steve
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869256].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                          Indeed, some like Rodman still. In his day, he was a hell of a basketball player. But even in his day, he seemed more intent on being known for being outrageous than for anything he did on the court. When he did play, his tattoos, wild hair color and piercings seemed designed to keep the attention solidly on him rather than his team. That's why I called him a buffoon.
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869340].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    These teachers obviously knew that these black men are famous for being bad boys - or just plain weird. I like Dennis Rodman, he was a hero in my town. But if you're going to pick someone to represent black history in basketball, a "teacher" or anyone w/ any history knowledge at all would choose either Michael Jordan (Dennis' team mate) or Wilt Chamberlan. And if you're going to choose a black person to represent history in Football, you wouldn't choose OJ Simpson. You'd choose Fritz Pollard. The first black NFL coach and first black man to play in the Rose Bowl.

    And the fact that they chose RuPaul at all, just further points out their motivation.

    So in my view, they are either just very mean (possibly racists) - Or they are ignorant of history, and shouldn't be teaching anyway. I can't seem to find anything that would be in the middle here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861140].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Well Timmy, I am not surprised by you either.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861851].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      OK, at first I didn't like that. Then I remembered I called you Stevie last year and you got pissed. Then I started laughing.

      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      Well Timmy, I am not surprised by you either.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1861892].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    John,
    Um, OK. You're right. Very good points.

    Hey Sal,
    Agreed with most of your post, right up until you defended the teachers. Again. Showing truth and balance and giving perspective is fine. But what they did doesn't fall into that category for me. You do that in a classroom, not in a parade. In a classroom you can discuss these things, ask and answer questions, give guidance and that "perspective" thingy you like so much.

    Please enlighten me Sal - at what point in the parade does the teacher stop the procession and start to give the crowd "perspective and balance" about the pictures her elementary students are holding up? The answer is "never", because that won't happen. The people watching the parade will be left up to their own devices to decipher why some elementary kid is holding up a picture of RuPaul in his full female-impersonating glory.

    If you honestly think giving a bunch of elementary kids pictures of those people to hold up in that parade is "showing truth and balance and giving perspective", then bless yo wuddle heart sista. You roll with that.
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1865998].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    RuPaul is a female impersonator? LOL - I didn't know.

    There was a famous white one back when I was in my teens too, but I don't remember his name. I don't think anyone would be screaming to fire people if they held his picture up in a parade though, actually. He was just part of the culture at the time. He was about one of the first who got famous..one of the first who was openly out of the closet, so I guess if they had a white people's parade, he'd fit into our history...but there'd be rednecks of every color lookin' to put a bullet through the banner, I'm sure. He was a pretty talented guy actually, and no matter what was thought about him he really did turn the tide on society a little bit.
    I know a lot of people go flaming whacko over the idea homosexual anything, but they are pushing white tolerance, they might as well push black tolerance to --- Welcome to equality, freaking kewl isn't it?
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1866618].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Good call Thom, I have been trying to figure out who it was.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1869857].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I can't find whether Beverly was the real name or just the character name of the person on AITF,
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872457].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    People's opinions about this issue are entrenched because they are backed up by reality.

    Affirmative Action doesnt belong in the same breath as things like civil rights, title ix or the 19th amendment. They are polar opposites, and if there is truly to be equality, AA should be abolished.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872567].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    When someone that is less qualified is given a job over the more qualified job applicant because their skin or religion or whatever is different than we have taken steps backwards, not forward.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872635].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      When someone that is less qualified is given a job over the more qualified job applicant because their skin or religion or whatever is different than we have taken steps backwards, not forward.

      I totally agree Kim. Of course, if a Black male or a woman earns a job over a White male, one should not automatically assume that the Black male or woman wasn't qualified and that the only reason the extremely qualified White male lost out to the obviously under qualified Black male or woman was because of Affirmative Action. Because, ya know, there is just no other reason for him NOT to have that job. It certainly was not because, God forbid, the other candidates were more qualified. How could that be?
      Signature

      Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
      http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872695].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

        I totally agree Kim. Of course, if a Black male or a woman earns a job over a White male, one should not automatically assume that the Black male or woman wasn't qualified and that the only reason the extremely qualified White male lost out to the obviously under qualified Black male or woman was because of Affirmative Action. Because, ya know, there is just no other reason for him NOT to have that job. It certainly was not because, God forbid, the other candidates were more qualified. How could that be?
        Dude, you love twistin things.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872775].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

          Dude, you love twistin things.
          Actually Kim, as far as what YOU wrote I was fine with it. My point wasn't to suggest that you felt this way because you've not posted anything to suggest that you do. My point was that there are SOME people who do feel this way.

          If you thought that I was referring to you, well I was not.
          Signature

          Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
          http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873570].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
        Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

        I totally agree Kim. Of course, if a Black male or a woman earns a job over a White male, one should not automatically assume that the Black male or woman wasn't qualified and that the only reason the extremely qualified White male lost out to the obviously under qualified Black male or woman was because of Affirmative Action. Because, ya know, there is just no other reason for him NOT to have that job. It certainly was not because, God forbid, the other candidates were more qualified. How could that be?
        If they were more qualified, they wouldnt need to have points added onto their scores because of the color of their skin.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872830].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

        I totally agree Kim. Of course, if a Black male or a woman earns a job over a White male, one should not automatically assume that the Black male or woman wasn't qualified and that the only reason the extremely qualified White male lost out to the obviously under qualified Black male or woman was because of Affirmative Action. Because, ya know, there is just no other reason for him NOT to have that job. It certainly was not because, God forbid, the other candidates were more qualified. How could that be?
        Two people enter a bodybuilding contest. One is CLEARLY the winner, but has "testosterone" in his locker. Should he be disqualified?

        MOST would say YES! He OBVIOUSLY had access and succeeded in a way to make one suspect.

        AA is the same way. So the suspicion will ALWAYS be there until they are the first generation in a x blind society. That could take 1-3 generations AFTER AA is stopped, and may take MORE!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872926].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
          Black History month, how patronizing and pathetic.

          Those that advocate it and support it, Black History month, somehow think that if others know of the accomplishments:

          1) not knowing the accomplishments of another is the cause of evil treatment

          2) Blacks will get love and respect from others, though they STILL do not love self



          The entire premise is false from the start.

          Education of self is the benefit of self and family, not soliciting love and respect from others, as though lack of the knowledge of history is the reasons for actions of evil.

          How delusional.

          28 days, 29 on leap year, shortest months in the year, in and of itself, by itself, is intellectually insulting and disingenuous.

          By the way, if it is a proven fact that my father brutally killed another man and took his car, then, as his son, I inherit it, and I know the full facts of the history of the car, how it was acquired and it is in the record book, what would that make me and what is my responsibility?

          What does the law say about that? Accepting stolen goods knowingly or not is handled how nowadays?

          Possession, by any means, is 9/10ths of the law, but what is the practices and history of those that made that law and who are they to be the standard of lawfulness?

          Trying to convince ,change, explain or implore on other individuals the principle of justice, reciprocity, fair play, equality, good will, peace, honesty, making things right, etc. is simply a waste of time, you will be lucky to save yourself and not get caught up in the distractions of irrelavancy.

          The 13th Warrior
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873084].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

            Black History month, how patronizing and pathetic.

            Those that advocate it and support it, Black History month, somehow think that if others know of the accomplishments:

            1) not knowing the accomplishments of another is the cause of evil treatment

            2) Blacks will get love and respect from others, though they STILL do not love self



            The entire premise is false from the start.

            Education of self is the benefit of self and family, not soliciting love and respect from others, as though lack of the knowledge of history is the reasons for actions of evil.

            How delusional.

            28 days, 29 on leap year, shortest months in the year, in and of itself, by itself, is intellectually insulting and disingenuous.

            By the way, if it is a proven fact that my father brutally killed another man and took his car, then, as his son, I inherit it, and I know the full facts of the history of the car, how it was acquired and it is in the record book, what would that make me and what is my responsibility?

            What does the law say about that? Accepting stolen goods knowingly or not is handled how nowadays?

            Possession, by any means, is 9/10ths of the law, but what is the practices and history of those that made that law and who are they to be the standard of lawfulness?

            Trying to convince ,change, explain or implore on other individuals the principle of justice, reciprocity, fair play, equality, good will, peace, honesty, making things right, etc. is simply a waste of time, you will be lucky to save yourself and not get caught up in the distractions of irrelavancy.

            The 13th Warrior
            As an American of African Decent, I feel I should publicly respond to your misunderstandings regarding Black History Month & your other misguided assertions about black people:

            The origins of BHMonth...

            In 1915, the historian Carter G. Woodson proposed a "Negro History Week" to honor the history and contributions of Africans to American and the planet.

            Nine years later, his dream became reality.

            Why February - the shortest month of the year??

            Woodson chose the second week of February to pay tribute to the birthdays of two Americans that dramatically affected the lives of Blacks:

            Abraham Lincoln (February 12) and Frederick Douglass (February 14).

            The week-long observance officially became Black History Month in 1976.

            So...

            your goings on about BHMonth being the shortest month etc. is based on ignorance.

            And...

            - Black history month was not and is not for the benefit of or targeted to anyone except Blacks.

            - Our contributions to our country...

            ... are as significant as any other single group of people in this nation such as Americans of Italian decent, Americans of Irish decent, Americans of Jewish decent etc., etc., ..

            - If others happen to learn more about Blacks and our contribution to this nation...

            ...good for them.

            - Perhaps they won't be so ignorant regarding Black Americans and continue thinking they're better than someone or other crazy stuff like this is only their country etc.

            - How BHMonth become so public as if we are pushing it down everyone else's throat - I have no idea, talk to the media.

            BTW...

            - As far as I'm concerned BHMonth has been co-opted and confined to only talk about Blacks and their contributions in America....

            ... as if we didn't have any history before America...

            ... when the founder Carter G. Woodson wanted to also celebrate African's contributions to the world.

            ( I just visited Egypt in December )

            BTW, there are other months celebrating other groups in the society.

            Love Of Self:

            - Black Americans love themselves just as much as any other group on the planet considering the last 300 or so years in the land of opportunity among the good American people.

            We simply have a larger percentage of us, than most other groups that have not ( for numerous reasons ) entered the mainstream of financial life yet - in this country.


            - The Civil rights movement...

            ... was never about hanging out with white folks or getting white folk to like us,

            ...as it was about ending public discrimination.

            The subsequent forced busing and forced integration is something I would never have advocated- had I been an adult back in those days.


            You said...

            "Those that advocate it and support it, Black History month, somehow think that if others know of the accomplishments"

            1) not knowing the accomplishments of another is the cause of evil treatment

            2) Blacks will get love and respect from others, though they STILL do not love self



            Well...

            There are plenty of disillusioned and misguided Black Americans who subscribe to that thinking above but...


            - I advocate and support Black History Month for my daughter and other kids ( and many adults also ) so that we can have a genuine sense of pride ( not arrogance ) for our contributions to this world as we live in a society with many different groups.

            - For my child and other black kids to not have something like BHMonth ( in this society ) she and they could easily get the wrong impression about lots of things and grow up with even a sense of shame because of slavery etc.


            As I said earlier, we've contributed just as much as any single ethic group of Americans to this country considering...

            We were within a hillybilly's heartbeat to being genocided ( new word ) after slavery till the turn of the 19th century.

            Remarkably, less than 40 years after slavery we still came to own property equal to the amount of land in all of Alabama among the "good people of the south".

            ( Which explains the increased Klan activity at that time )


            BTW...

            The first official martyr for the nation, recognized in colonial days, happened to be one of us.


            - We were also at Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill and when the first prez, trapped Conwallis at Yorktown to effectively end the war, of his 20k troops, a full 25% just happened to be us.


            - Most of us have been in America since at least 1800 - longer than most other groups ( in mass ) in the country except the folks of English, Dutch and Scottish backgrounds.


            Finally...

            Your above assertions are based on ignorance and not worth a continental.

            I personally think you may have arrived at many of your above conclusions because you have a dislike for Blacks Americans as a group.


            If that's the case, I'm sure you and all that feel that way can imagine what you and they can do for me.



            TL

            Ps. Others do not have to respond, but Mr. 13th Warrior is more than welcome.
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1884631].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
          Rob, the idea behind affirmative action is an honorable one. As originally conceived, it was supposed to open playing fields where they were not open before as opposed to leveling the field. The problem lies in the execution.

          Politicos of many colors perverted the program to buy votes.

          The idea got twisted into just one more political tool, and it no longer works.

          I once consulted a business that had a woman of color in a wheelchair whose only job was to sit by the window and watch the parking lot for eight hours a day. When I asked about her, the owner told me that the woman was his "threefer" -- he got credit for hiring a minority, a woman and a 'crip' and the tax breaks more than made up for the wage he paid her.

          As it turned out, many of his other business practices were on the same level, and I quickly severed our relationship.

          In its current form, affirmative action is not fulfilling its real function and needs to be scrapped.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873092].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
          Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

          Two people enter a bodybuilding contest. One is CLEARLY the winner, but has "testosterone" in his locker. Should he be disqualified?

          MOST would say YES! He OBVIOUSLY had access and succeeded in a way to make one suspect.

          AA is the same way. So the suspicion will ALWAYS be there until they are the first generation in a x blind society. That could take 1-3 generations AFTER AA is stopped, and may take MORE!

          Steve
          Lemme see if I understand you correctly Steve. If a Black man succeeds against a White man, the simple fact that he is Black renders his success against said White opponent suspect? That people would naturally assume that he succeeded because of AA? And that it would take generations AFTER they abolished AA for Whites to begin to think that Blacks could compete with Whites and win on a level playing field?

          Three things come to mind:

          OH!

          MY!

          GOD!
          Signature

          Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
          http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873629].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author ThomM
            People, PEOPLE! Let's get back to what is important here.
            Beverly LaSalle was the female impersonator on Archie Bunker.
            Lori Shannon was the gay dude who portrayed her.
            Lori Shannon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
            Signature

            Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
            Getting old ain't for sissy's
            As you are I was, as I am you will be
            You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873803].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

            Lemme see if I understand you correctly Steve. If a Black man succeeds against a White man, the simple fact that he is Black renders his success against said White opponent suspect? That people would naturally assume that he succeeded because of AA? And that it would take generations AFTER they abolished AA for Whites to begin to think that Blacks could compete with Whites and win on a level playing field?

            Three things come to mind:

            OH!

            MY!

            GOD!
            You really can't be THAT vapid, RIGHT!? Think about what YOU said, my response, and THEN try to understand what I am saying here! AA causes people to be UNFAIRLY promoted! Scores are CHANGED! Scholarships granted, business granted, etc.... EVERYTHING is in question. PERIOD! END OF STORY! Did I say anything about black versus white? NOPE! EVERYTHING is in question. You can't even look at scores and say that the white, hispanic, WHATEVER got 70, and the black got a 98, and therefore the black obviously did better. It is WORTHLESS! AND, with blacks that HAVE been promoted that way, they are more likely to promote blacks, so it will taint THEIR accomplishments.

            So the AA is like that testosterone in the locker. It may help. You may have it only as ann option and never use it. If others know it was an option, YOUR ACCOMPLISHMENTS ARE SUSPECT! And I don't know why you try to get me to believe what isn't true. THAT can not be the goal! You have THREE CHOICES....

            1. Leave it and hope for the best, but DON'T complain, because you DID ask for it!
            2. Get rid of AA, and the problem will eventually disappear.
            3. Forget about MY beliefs, try to change the maybe 2BILLION people's belief's regarding the other 4billion. SO, to cover everyone, you only have to change 8quadrillion beliefs! HECK, maybe the other 4 billion are concerned also, so it would be about 24 quadrillion beliefs. If I were black, I know I would wonder!

            BTW, "Affirmative action" ALSO disables the ability to properly source projects. That raises hassles and costs, and could lower quality. THINK OF IT! YOUR taxes could go up! MAYBE some relatives of YOURS could DIE! Because of affirmative action! Am I saying Blacks charge HIGH prices, or offer low quality products? NOPE! But can YOU guarantee that they offer the best products at the best price? NO WAY! BESIDES, the RFPs for affirmative action projects AUTOMATICALLY cost more to put out. So let's put EVERYONE on a level playing field!

            ANYWAY, like I said, your job isn't to convince me. Frankly, I won't go any farther down this tangent. And it IS funny since you, so long ago, said you were leaving.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1874035].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

              You really can't be THAT vapid, RIGHT!? Think about what YOU said, my response, and THEN try to understand what I am saying here! AA causes people to be UNFAIRLY promoted! Scores are CHANGED! Scholarships granted, business granted, etc....
              Steve
              Steve, I think it's fair to say that I am diametrically opposed to everything you, and others who think like you, believe to be true about this issue. And that is absolutely fine - there is no law that says we have to have a DNA match regarding hot button issues.

              This is what I believe to be true regarding AA - it would be nice if we lived in a true meritocracy; a world where everyone advanced based solely on their abilities. IMHO that world doesn't exist. It NEVER existed. It would be nice if we never needed AA, but I think we do. Even in 2010.

              Some people see AA as a program ensuring that an unqualified applicant gets a job over someone who is clearly more qualified. I see AA as a program ensuring that a qualified minority gets the same opportunity as a qualified white applicant to earn a job. (Before AA, the majority of minorities wouldn't even get a chance to interview for any of those jobs, irrespective of qualifications.)

              A number of people would be justifiably insulted if someone yelled "racism!" every time a White guy wins a job over a minority. By the same token, I find it insulting when somebody insinuates that the only reason a minority could ever earn a spot over a white male is solely because of AA and "that the system is broken."

              You believe what you want to believe. I'll believe what I want to believe. And the sun will come out tomorrow.
              Signature

              Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
              http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1874363].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                What the heck, I'll bite one more time...

                Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                Steve, I think it's fair to say that I am diametrically opposed to everything you, and others who think like you, believe to be true about this issue. And that is absolutely fine - there is no law that says we have to have a DNA match regarding hot button issues.
                As I said, people DO feel that way, and you have chosen the silly option #1 or impossible #3. OK, that's your choice.

                it would be nice if we lived in a true meritocracy; a world where everyone advanced based solely on their abilities. IMHO that world doesn't exist. It NEVER existed.
                YEP, it doesn't exist for ANYONE! Not even whites. Heck, each state has different standards. Each schooll district does! Each school does! Each TEACHER does! And everyone learns differently and has different interests. SO, based on even getting through Highschool with a decent amount of teaching and good grades can vary GREATLY. And colleges basically ADVERTISE this by talking about accredidation, different requirements, and credit transferability. LATER, you have associations, families, etc....

                So why should only NON whites be favored? Then again, if ALL were favored, it would be akin to NONE being favored. Do you START to see my point?

                It would be nice if we never needed AA, but I think we do. Even in 2010.
                WOW! MAN!

                Some people see AA as a program ensuring that an unqualified applicant gets a job over someone who is clearly more qualified. I see AA as a program ensuring that a qualified minority gets the same opportunity as a qualified white applicant to earn a job. (Before AA, the majority of minorities wouldn't even get a chance to interview for any of those jobs, irrespective of qualifications.)
                Well, now even a QUALIFIED minority has MORE competition because he or she has to compete with those that have had their problems covered up.

                A number of people would be justifiably insulted if someone yelled "racism!" every time a White guy wins a job over a minority. By the same token, I find it insulting when somebody insinuates that the only reason a minority could every earn a spot over a white male is solely because of AA and "that the system is broken."
                Well, sometimes they HAVE yelled racism when a non black has gotten the job, and the AA makes a racism claim against a non white all the more reasonable, so there can be no justification for being insulted. Be happy it doesn't happen ALL the time.

                And YOU are saying blacks can't win without AA, so YOU are the one being insulting.

                HECK, at the contract I work at right now, my immediate boss is indian, his is indian, his is black, and his is indian, who basically now runs the whole division. And the indians all have black features and skin. Sounds to me like they don't need AA. The place I worked at before this ALSO had a lot of blacks, albeit not as many. The entertainment industry, The sports industry, etc....

                Nobody would fire all those blacks EVEN if they hated their guts, etc... They really couldn't for a lot of reasons. And there IS a demonstrated preference. Just look at the whitehouse of late! Of course, white presidents didn't only select whites...

                I wonder... Did MJs doctor "benefit" from AA?

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1874591].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
            Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

            Lemme see if I understand you correctly Steve. If a Black man succeeds against a White man, the simple fact that he is Black renders his success against said White opponent suspect? That people would naturally assume that he succeeded because of AA? And that it would take generations AFTER they abolished AA for Whites to begin to think that Blacks could compete with Whites and win on a level playing field?

            Three things come to mind:

            OH!

            MY!

            GOD!
            No, if a black man required elevated scores for skills testing for a job due to affirmative action to get the job or is hired not because he is the best person for the job, but because the law requires that a certain amount of minorities, then that success is suspect.

            The whole point behind affirmative action was to stop whites from getting hired due to the color of their skin. But affirmative action just makes sure that minorities get hired...because of the color of their skin. All affirmative action does is move racial injustice, it doesnt remove it. EOE laws and constitutaionl amendments actually level the playing field, but at this point it doesnt really need to be leveled by anything other than skill and knowledge. This isnt the 40's, 50's, 60's any more
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876243].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    "AA should be abolished."

    Dude, I am so in your corner. I think we both know that, left to it's own devices, diversity would just naturally occur and that qualified people, regardless of their ethnicity or gender, would always get opportunities. That whole "old boy's network" or "glass ceiling" never existed. Or if it ever did (which we both know it did NOT), it sure doesn't now.

    I mean heck, it's 2010! What little racism we had was eviscerated when we elected a Black president. Look at Oprah, for God's sake. And Will Smith. Does anyone in his right mind that that we can have successes like Oprah, Will Smith or Ellen Degeneres if there was any racism or bigotry left in America?

    I think not!

    And if people were really paying attention, it's CORPORATE AMERICA that leads the fight for equality and fairness. We don't need the "govment" sticking their noses in our hiring and career advancement practices and trying to level the playing field. Corporate America has been a shining example of meritocracy in action for decades.

    Yo Mike, I'm on your side, brother. We have symbolically locked arms (but not in a gay way).
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872665].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

      "AA should be abolished."

      Dude, I am so in your corner. I think we both know that, left to it's own devices, diversity would just naturally occur and that qualified people, regardless of their ethnicity or gender, would always get opportunities. That whole "old boy's network" or "glass ceiling" never existed. Or if it ever did (which we both know it did NOT), it sure doesn't now.

      I mean heck, it's 2010! What little racism we had was eviscerated when we elected a Black president. Look at Oprah, for God's sake. And Will Smith. Does anyone in his right mind that that we can have successes like Oprah, Will Smith or Ellen Degeneres if there was any racism or bigotry left in America?

      I think not!

      And if people were really paying attention, it's CORPORATE AMERICA that leads the fight for equality and fairness. We don't need the "govment" sticking their noses in our hiring and career advancement practices and trying to level the playing field. Corporate America has been a shining example of meritocracy in action for decades.

      Yo Mike, I'm on your side, brother. We have symbolically locked arms (but not in a gay way).
      I'm sure thats what passes for humor or clever in Iowa. Maybe you should keep it there.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1872709].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

        I'm sure thats what passes for humor or clever in Iowa. Maybe you should keep it there.
        Naw - Unlike the Mann Act, I can take sarcasm pretty much across state lines.
        Signature

        Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
        http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873587].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    At this point of time I think we've come far enough that AA needs to stop, too. It has become a vehicle of reverse discrimination even though I firmly believe it was very necessary for a few decades. At this point if politics would shut the hell up and leave us all alone, we'd learn to get along just fine and people would be hired according to merit and all the arguing would stop about it. Sometimes AA still pulls people in who have no just right to a position - sometimes someone carps about someone getting a position that they rightfully should have just because they are POd that they didn't get it themselves. And this works on both sides of the fence, not just in one direction.

    When I lived in Germany I found myself discriminated against very frequently.... until when I opened my mouth, I attempted the respect to try to speak to them in their own language, and showed them I knew I was a visitor to THEIR country. I smeared the heck out of their language, but they automatically opened up to me because I had showed them some respect. I think we are all like that in a way - no matter who we hate, if we can see they are willing to give us our due respect as humans, we will give them the benefit of the doubt and listen and see if we like them.

    My sister now has a black significant other - watching the turmoil from the outside has been entertaining, to say the least.
    My father, an 86 year old man who was raised in a time of racial segregation and bigotry - can't get his head around a mixed couple and is outraged over the relationship. He's near his end years, isn't going to change and we all accept that.
    Me? I don't give a rip. It's her life and she's free to do as she pleases and if that relationship becomes bad for her I'm sure she'll act appropriately.
    Her daughter - raised in an age of tolerance and has friends of all races. She HATES my sister's boyfriend because my sister is basically supporting him right now and daughter thinks he's nothing but a total mooch. My sister, who has always known daughter to be unbiased, now uses the excuse of "bigot" to explain her daughter's feelings, holy LOL.
    Him? I don't know him. I've only said hi on the phone a few times, not much you can tell about a person from that. I don't understand what exactly his financial situation is, so I can judge if he has motives being with my sister or he's just sitting between opportunities or what the deal is. I'll be meeting him soon enough and will figure out if I like him or not then. But I do know he feels the heat on a few ends. I wonder if he cops out that all of it, like my niece's is "bigot" or not.

    I think the whole country now is nothing but a slapstick comedy show. I just have fun sitting back and watching the stupidity raging on all sides. I'm white - wanna hate me for it? If that's the only reason you can find to hate me, then I'm not doing too bad as a person I would figure. It seems that if everyone figured the same thing a lot of politically directed lunacy would lose its hold on us and if they are using their PC to keep us at each other's throats, they would lose their power over us.

    If you are black and I meet you on the street and you obviously hate me and I ask why - tell me the truth. If it's because I'm white, I'm not going to drag your ass into court and compound that hatred. You can't sue the hate out of a person, that's just stupid thinking. I would prefer to know that someone hates me than have it buried so I have no clue. I don't want to waste my time on someone who isn't with my program.
    I don't want to have enemies and not know where they are. That's not security.

    Ho hum....this conversation was interesting for awhile, but I'm bored with it now, so I'll see ya'all elsewhere.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1873132].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "It would be nice if we never needed AA, but I think we do. Even in 2010. "

    No, we don't.


    "And the sun will come out tomorrow. "

    Yes, it will.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1874381].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    Steve,

    You asked a few questions and raised some interesting points. But there is nothing new or fresh to say about this issue, and I just don't care anymore. I'm moving on to other topics, like IM.

    Go forth and do likewise, my friend.
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1874775].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "This isnt the 40's, 50's, 60's any more "

    It's not even the 70's, 80's, or 90's!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876346].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "This isnt the 40's, 50's, 60's any more "

      It's not even the 70's, 80's, or 90's!
      Have pity on us "old timers". I still remember the 70s, and "black power". Black Power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      And cosby can say what he wants, but he was only ONE popular and well paid black and he already had a number of parts.

      A few popular shows:

      I Spy
      Cosby's "Van Dyke" success influenced those planning the I Spy espionage adventure series inspired by the James Bond films. They asked "why [the agents] have to both be white". In 1965 Cosby became the first African-American co-star (paired with Robert Culp) in a dramatic television series, and NBC became the first to present a series so cast. At first Cosby and NBC executives were concerned that some affiliates might be unwilling to carry the series. At the beginning of the 1965 season four stations declined the show; they were in Georgia, Florida, and Alabama. But the rest of the country[vague] was taken with the show's exotic locales and the authentic chemistry between the stars, and it became one of the ratings hits of that television season. I Spy finished among the twenty most-watched shows that year, and Cosby would be honored with three consecutive Emmy Awards for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series. Although ostensibly focused on Culp's character, the show had clearly become a vehicle for his co-star.

      Throughout the series' three-year run Cosby was repeatedly confronted with the question of race. For him it was enough that I Spy portrayed two men who worked as equals unhindered by race, but critics[vague] took the show to task for not having a black character engage with the racial issues that inflamed the country at that time. Cosby was relieved[vague] when the series ended, enabling him to concentrate on his family and to return to live performing.

      During the run of the series, Cosby had continued to do stand-up comedy performances, and released a half-dozen record albums. He also began to dabble in singing, recording Silver Throat: Bill Cosby Sings in 1967, which provided him with a hit single with his recording of "Li'l Ole Man". He would record several more musical albums into the early 1970s, but he continued to record primarily stand-up comedy work.

      Fat Albert, The Bill Cosby Show, and the 1970s
      Cosby still pursued a variety of television projects: as a regular guest host on The Tonight Show and as the star of an annual special for NBC. He returned with another series in 1969, The Bill Cosby Show, a situation comedy that ran for two seasons. Cosby played a physical education teacher at a Los Angeles high school. While only a modest critical success, the show was a ratings hit, finishing eleventh in its first season.

      After The Bill Cosby Show left the air, Cosby returned to his education. He began graduate work at the University of Massachusetts, qualifying under a special program that allowed for the admission of students who had not completed their bachelor's degrees, but who had had a significant impact on society and/or their communities through their careers. This professional interest led to his involvement in the PBS series The Electric Company, for which he recorded several segments teaching reading skills to young children.

      In 1972, Cosby received an MA from the University of Massachusetts and was also back in prime time with a variety series, The New Bill Cosby Show. However, this time he met with poor ratings, and the show lasted only a season. More successful was a Saturday morning show, Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids, hosted by Cosby and based on his own childhood, running from 1972 to 1979, then from 1979 to 1984 as The New Fat Albert and the Cosby Kids. Some schools used the program as a teaching tool, and Cosby himself wrote his dissertation on it in order to obtain his doctorate, also from the University of Massachusetts, in Education in 1976.[7][14] Subsequently, Temple University, where Cosby had begun but never finished his undergraduate studies, would grant him his bachelor's degree on the basis of "life experience".

      Also during the 1970s, Cosby and other African American actors, including Sidney Poitier, joined forces to make some successful comedy films that countered the violent "blaxploitation" films of the era. Uptown Saturday Night (1974) and Let's Do It Again (1975) were generally praised, but much of Cosby's film work has fallen flat. Mother, Jugs & Speed (1976) costarring Raquel Welch and Harvey Keitel; A Piece of the Action, with Poitier; and California Suite, a compilation of four Neil Simon plays, were all panned. In addition, Cos (1976) an hour-long variety show featuring puppets, sketches, and musical numbers, was canceled within the year. Cosby was also a regular on children's public television programs starting in the 70's, hosting the "Picture Pages" segments that lasted into the early 80s.
      Anyway, it is easy to think of this stuff as being yesterday. It might as well have been, even though it is farther away from us than WWII was from my birth. Funny, most Americans, when I was born, had ALREADY come to understand about Germany's involvement and how they, as a people, WEREN'T evil. We bought their goods, had them as allies, and helped rebuild their cities.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876446].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        Pity? Why? You think "Black Power" was something bad? How did it hurt you?

        "Black Power' means black people coming together to form a political force and either electing representatives or forcing their representatives to speak their needs."

        Oh yeah, this is from Steve who is too afraid and intimidated by black people apparently to say in a pizza place "The black guy took my order." LOL

        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Have pity on us "old timers". I still remember the 70s, and "black power". Black Power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        And cosby can say what he wants, but he was only ONE popular and well paid black and he already had a number of parts.



        Steve
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876866].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          But let a white group form for the same reasons and the cries of racist will ring through the country
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Pity? Why? You think "Black Power" was something bad? How did it hurt you?

          "Black Power' means black people coming together to form a political force and either electing representatives or forcing their representatives to speak their needs."

          Oh yeah, this is from Steve who is too afraid and intimidated by black people apparently to say in a pizza place "The black guy took my order." LOL
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876888].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            You do understand when the black power movement was started and when it was most prominent right? During the civil rights era of the 60s and early 70s. People were fighting for equal rights and justice.

            If white people got together to form a political force to elect representatives or force their representatives to speak their needs that would not be necessarily considered racist. However, if people use the term "white power" it would bring to mind racists because most who use that term are racist who aren't fighting for equal rights but believe in white supremacy. Do a google of white power and see for yourself all the lovely websites who use the term to describe themselves.

            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            But let a white group form for the same reasons and the cries of racist will ring through the country
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877053].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author ThomM
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              You do understand when the black power movement was started and when it was most prominent right? During the civil rights era of the 60s and early 70s. People were fighting for equal rights and justice.

              If white people got together to form a political force to elect representatives or force their representatives to speak their needs that would not be considered racist. However, if people use the term "white power" it would bring to mind racists because most who use that term are racist who aren't fighting for equal rights but believe in white supremacy. Do a google of white power and see for yourself all the lovely websites who use the term to describe themselves.
              First let me say I have no dog in this fight.
              Also I think just talking about racism creates more racism.
              The only way it will totally stop is when people stop perpetuating it.
              You don't have to be a racist to perpetuate racism.

              Now the issue is this.
              Usually when a group is formed if it is a black group the general feeling is that it is for civil rights or the advancement of the race, mainly because that is what most of those groups where formed for.
              With whites there is the stigma of supremacy groups like the KKK and white supremacist which unfortunately have been a part of our culture for over 100 years. Because of that it would be virtually impossible for whites to start an organization like the NAACP without other races being concerned about it being a supremacy group.
              Signature

              Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
              Getting old ain't for sissy's
              As you are I was, as I am you will be
              You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877099].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                First let me say I have no dog in this fight.
                Also I think just talking about racism creates more racism.
                The only way it will totally stop is when people stop perpetuating it.
                You don't have to be a racist to perpetuate racism.

                AGAIN, at the risk of sounding religious, AMEN!!!!!!!!!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877279].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Oh yeah? go try to start that politcal force and see what happens.

              There is a Black miss american pagent. Even though african americans are allowed in the open miss america, whites are not allowed in the black miss america pagent. but thats not racist?

              now go start a white miss america pagent, see how fast al sharpton is knocking on your door

              I was watching 'boyz in da hood' the other night. In that movie you hear lawrence fishburn's charachter say 'we need to keep black businesses in black neighborhoods, owned with black money'...and if you go into any black business around here anyway, you will see a sign that says 'BLACK OWNED'. If that line were in a movie based on whites, good god the city would explode. If a sign like that were in a white business that business would probably be on fire shortly.

              Spend some time listening to the speeches of Minister Farrakhan of The Nation of Islam. He's nothing more than a klansman in a bowtie.


              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              You do understand when the black power movement was started and when it was most prominent right? During the civil rights era of the 60s and early 70s. People were fighting for equal rights and justice.

              If white people got together to form a political force to elect representatives or force their representatives to speak their needs that would not be considered racist. However, if people use the term "white power" it would bring to mind racists because most who use that term are racist who aren't fighting for equal rights but believe in white supremacy. Do a google of white power and see for yourself all the lovely websites who use the term to describe themselves.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877106].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Took one minute to find this:

                Miss Italian American Beauty Pageant Presented Aboard The USS

                Here's a German Miss America:

                http://www.germanparadenyc.org/news3.html

                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post


                There is a Black miss american pagent. Even though african americans are allowed in the open miss america, whites are not allowed in the black miss america pagent. but thats not racist?

                now go start a white miss america pagent, see how fast al sharpton is knocking on your door
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877198].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post


                  ProTip: Nationality isnt the same thing as race.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877222].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  And what if a german, or italian, that happened to be black, wanted to run?

                  What is your point?
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877293].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                    That would be interesting to find out.

                    My point is that this bringing up the Miss Black America contest as if it is some sort of racist thing when in reality it is a result of a racist society. The Miss America Pageant was around since the early 20th century and there wasn't even a black contestant until 1970 because of the white supremist racism in this country. I know you guys don't like to hear that, but it's the truth.

                    So in the 60s the black community decided to have their own pageant since they were excluded from "The Miss America" pageant. Somehow, this is incredibly perceived as a something wrong and a form a racism by the black community. You guys can't really be that dense to not comprehend this stuff can you?

                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    And what if a german, or italian, that happened to be black, wanted to run?

                    What is your point?
                    Signature
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877358].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                      Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                      That would be interesting to find out.

                      My point is that this bringing up the Miss Black America contest as if it is some sort of racist thing when in reality it is a result of a racist society. The Miss America Pageant was around since the early 20th century and there wasn't even a black contestant until 1970 because of the white supremist racism in this country. I know you guys don't like to hear that, but it's the truth.

                      So in the 60s the black community decided to have their own pageant since they were excluded from "The Miss America" pageant. Somehow, this is incredibly perceived as a something wrong and a form a racism by the black community. You guys can't really be that dense to not comprehend this stuff can you?
                      Tim, while I understand the roots of the Miss Black America pageant, and I thoroughly understand the feeling that led to it, I think it's outdated.

                      Now that we've had several black Miss Americas and the ratio of black contestants to white is actually higher than the ratio of blacks to whites in the general population, I think it's time to merge the two contests.

                      Maintaining both smacks of "separate but equal" to me, a concept that was anathema to the whole integration fight.

                      On a purely commercial level, both pageants are slowly dying of apathy. In the case of Miss America, what was once a prime time event is now relegated to odd time slots on the upper reaches of the cable dial. I think BET may be the only channel covering Miss Black America.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1878211].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                        Happy St. Patricks day John from a proud Irish American. BTW, what am I doing here instead of in some Irish pub anyways?

                        Honestly, I think any beauty pageant is outdated.

                        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

                        Tim, while I understand the roots of the Miss Black America pageant, and I thoroughly understand the feeling that led to it, I think it's outdated.

                        Now that we've had several black Miss Americas and the ratio of black contestants to white is actually higher than the ratio of blacks to whites in the general population, I think it's time to merge the two contests.

                        Maintaining both smacks of "separate but equal" to me, a concept that was anathema to the whole integration fight.

                        On a purely commercial level, both pageants are slowly dying of apathy. In the case of Miss America, what was once a prime time event is now relegated to odd time slots on the upper reaches of the cable dial. I think BET may be the only channel covering Miss Black America.
                        Signature
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1878317].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          Pity? Why? You think "Black Power" was something bad? How did it hurt you?

          "Black Power' means black people coming together to form a political force and either electing representatives or forcing their representatives to speak their needs."

          Oh yeah, this is from Steve who is too afraid and intimidated by black people apparently to say in a pizza place "The black guy took my order." LOL
          I never said it was bad. I never said cosby was bad. And NOPE, I am NOT too afraid/intimidated.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877261].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Have pity on us "old timers". I still remember the 70s, and "black power". Black Power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "

    Steve,
    I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing we are within a few years of each other, plus or minus.
    I remember all that stuff too.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1876646].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "Have pity on us "old timers". I still remember the 70s, and "black power". Black Power - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia "

      Steve,
      I don't know how old you are but I'm guessing we are within a few years of each other, plus or minus.
      I remember all that stuff too.
      I forgot to mention that, yeah, I said it half in jest. Yeah, you and I are about the same age as I recall. In fact, I am a few years younger than you.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877245].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    There are always extreme groups on either side.
    Blacks - Black Panthers,which started as political but became terrorists.
    Whites-KKK - who were always terrorists.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877075].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      There are always extreme groups on either side.
      Blacks - Black Panthers,which started as political but became terrorists.
      Whites-KKK - who were always terrorists.
      The Klan were not always terrorists. But they have grown into a terrorist organization
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877112].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      The Black Panthers openly carried leaded guns ( which was legal in Cal then ), were militant and sometimes violent. I can't think of one incident which could be called terrorism though.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      There are always extreme groups on either side.
      Blacks - Black Panthers,which started as political but became terrorists.
      Whites-KKK - who were always terrorists.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877156].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
        I'd say rolling into the state assembly building 30 deep armed to the teeth to protest is systematic terror and killing a police officer qualifies as coercion.

        That would fulfill the definition of terrorist.

        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        The Black Panthers openly carried leaded guns ( which was legal in Cal then ), were militant and sometimes violent. I can't think of one incident which could be called terrorism though.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877218].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I found the following information.
    In addition I know from memory that several were charged with murder.

    "The group acted on its image. In some instances, members would appear en masse and simply threaten violence. In others, they took over buildings or engaged in shootouts with police or with other militant groups. Both Black Panther members and police members were killed in confrontations."

    Notable events & attacks:
    • May 2, 1967: About 30 armed Black Panther members entered the California legislature to protest consideration of outlawing the right of private citizens to bear arms. There was no violence, but the spectacle is well remembered and brought the group into public light..
    • 1967-1968: A number of shootouts between Black Panther members and the police, leave a number of both parties dead
    • April 6, 1968: An armed confrontation between Black Panthers and police led to a 90 minute confrontation at a building housing Panthers. Eventually, the Panthers surrendered. Over the course of the day, at least four policemen were wounded and one killed. One Panther member, Bobby Hutton, was killed by the police and seven others were arrested.
    • December 4, 1969: Another well-remembered instance of violence was instigated by the FBI, which provided the information needed to raid the Illinois Black Panther Party head's apartment. Two members of the Black Panthers were killed by gunfire. The event is remembered partly for the disproportionate firing: evidence revealed later that the police fired up to 99 bullets, while the Panthers may have shot one. It is also remembered because information required for the break-in was obtained by an FBI infiltrator in a period when surveillance of the domestic group had been approved.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877197].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      These are examples of violence but aren't terrorism. They were violent which I don't condone. I prefer the non violent civil disobedience practiced by Martin Luther King and Ghandi.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      The group acted on its image. In some instances, members would appear en masse and simply threaten violence. In others, they took over buildings or engaged in shootouts with police or with other militant groups. Both Black Panther members and police members were killed in confrontations.

      Notable events & attacks:
      • May 2, 1967: About 30 armed Black Panther members entered the California legislature to protest consideration of outlawing the right of private citizens to bear arms. There was no violence, but the spectacle is well remembered and brought the group into public light..
      • 1967-1968: A number of shootouts between Black Panther members and the police, leave a number of both parties dead
      • April 6, 1968: An armed confrontation between Black Panthers and police led to a 90 minute confrontation at a building housing Panthers. Eventually, the Panthers surrendered. Over the course of the day, at least four policemen were wounded and one killed. One Panther member, Bobby Hutton, was killed by the police and seven others were arrested.
      • December 4, 1969: Another well-remembered instance of violence was instigated by the FBI, which provided the information needed to raid the Illinois Black Panther Party head's apartment. Two members of the Black Panthers were killed by gunfire. The event is remembered partly for the disproportionate firing: evidence revealed later that the police fired up to 99 bullets, while the Panthers may have shot one. It is also remembered because information required for the break-in was obtained by an FBI infiltrator in a period when surveillance of the domestic group had been approved.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877228].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
        When you use violence to strongarm officials into changing policy, thats terrorism
        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

        These are examples of violence but aren't terrorism. They were violent which I don't condone. I prefer the non violent civil disobedience practiced by Martin Luther King and Ghandi.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877255].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
          So the American Revolution was an act of terrorism according to your definition. Interesting.

          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

          When you use violence to strongarm officials into changing policy, thats terrorism
          Signature
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877266].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
            Well lets go ask the English...see what they have to say about it?

            Terrorism or freedom fighter are pretty much the same thing, the difference in the definition will depend on which side of the rifle you're standing on when the act occurs.
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            So the American Revolution was an act of terrorism according to your definition. Interesting.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877324].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

            So the American Revolution was an act of terrorism according to your definition. Interesting.
            Actually, the American revolution was *****AMERICAN*****! They wanted the british to stay out. If anything, the BRITISH were the terrorists. AND, it started relatively peacefull.

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877326].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
              Originally Posted by seasoned View Post


              Actually, the American revolution was *****AMERICAN*****! They wanted the british to stay out. If anything, the BRITISH were the terrorists. .

              Ah, so what you are saying is a civilian cannot be a terroist against a foreign military in their own country, according to your statement.

              Also by your statement, you consider an unwanted, occupying foreign military to be terrorist.

              Interesting.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877733].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by The 13th Warrior View Post

                Ah, so what you are saying is a civilian cannot be a terroist against a foreign military in their own country, according to your statement.
                RIGHT!

                Also by your statement, you consider an unwanted, occupying foreign military to be terrorist.

                Interesting.
                EXACTLY! So you are saying that the islamic terrorists AREN'T terrorists? If we do the same thing to them HERE, it is just sovreign RIGHT! If we do the same thing to them in THEIR land, they can consider it terrorism.

                To consider a DEFENDER on THEIR turf to be a terrorist against an initial aggressor is just STUPID! It is called self defense or WAR!

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877907].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    We will have to agree to disagree on this one Tim. In my opinion they were terrorist (definitely) by todays standards and the standards of the time. They were like I said, a political group at first,albeit a militant one. Maybe it would be better to say they became splintered,and a portion became a terrorist group.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877254].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    BTW, The SLA was called a militant group,but they also were terrorists.
    Same with the weathermen.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877278].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    To quote ThomM:
    "First let me say I have no dog in this fight."
    Me either, I just like a good discussion.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1877398].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ThomM
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      To quote ThomM:
      "First let me say I have no dog in this fight."
      Me either, I just like a good discussion.
      So do I Kim.
      Unfortunately this isn't one.
      Signature

      Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
      Getting old ain't for sissy's
      As you are I was, as I am you will be
      You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1878527].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author KimW
        Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

        So do I Kim.
        Unfortunately this isn't one.
        Maybe not Thom, but we gotta work with what we got.
        Signature

        Read A Post.
        Subscribe to a Newsletter
        KimWinfrey.Com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879477].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Tim,
    I didn't quote you, the list is just too damn long, but thank you.

    By the way, I may not agree with all he has done, but I give him credit for doing it.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879471].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
    What a bunch of dorks seems people still don't get blood is the same color no matter who bleeds it


    -WD
    Signature

    "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879496].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

    Now that we've had several black Miss Americas and the ratio of black contestants to white is actually higher than the ratio of blacks to whites in the general population, I think it's time to merge the two contests.

    Maintaining both smacks of "separate but equal" to me, a concept that was anathema to the whole integration fight.
    (THIS POST WAS EDITED BY AR)

    Jumping back in because, compared to the majority of the people in this thread, I am somewhat an expert in this subject, as I represent 3 clients who happen to be state directors of Miss Black USA, who held their pageant in Washington, DC last summer.

    First, let me dispel the notion that there is only one White major pageant. There are several major pageants, the most famous two being Miss America and Miss USA. (Google "beauty pageants" and you'll see what I mean.)

    The reasons for so many pageants are numerous, but the biggest is money and opportunity. The pageant business is huge, so starting your own national or regional pageant can potentially be very lucrative - even without a national TV contract. So to suggest that any pageant - white or black - shut down because we have a a single Miss America pageant is ludicrous. Plus, with many pageants you have many winners. There can only be one Miss America. But there can be a Miss America, Miss USA, Miss American Beauty, Miss Dream Girls USA, etc., etc., etc. Whenever I hear the argument suggesting that the pageant directors of, say, Miss Black USA or Miss Black America shut it down, I never hear them say that the legions of (mostly) white pageants do the same.

    But let's talk specifically about Miss Black USA and other predominately African American pageants. One could make the (flawed) argument that since it's 2010 and most pageants don't restrict contestants based on race, the Black young women who compete in predominately Black pageants can just compete in one of a number of pageants run by white directors who have mostly white contestants. Ya know - shut down the Black pageants and have the Black young ladies compete in the (mostly) White pageants. Well, there's the thing about money. Why would or should Black pageant directors just shut down their business and concede their profits to the pageant directors who run the majority White pageants?

    But here's probably the biggest reason for Black pageants:

    The standards of beauty for most Black pageants are different than the standards of beauty for White pageants.

    Even though the current Miss America, Caressa Cameron, is African American, she would probably have LOST in the Miss Black USA pageant. Most Miss America contestants have a similar body type - most are tall, thin, Barbie Doll types. Caressa is shorter, but she has the thin Barbie Doll figure. And though it's no fault of her own, she's light-skinned.

    Many Miss Black USA pageant winners have been curvy (aka larger) women. You won't find THAT in a Miss America contest. You will not find a Miss America winner with a lot of junk in the trunk. And while some Miss Black USA winners have been light-skinned, they have also had very dark-skinned winners. You will not find a Miss America winner who was darker than your average grocery bag. Many people feel that a Black women can win Miss America, but she has to be light-skinned to do it. In other words, many people feel that she has to be as close to white as possible. Now I know that a lot of people in this thread will jump on me about that statement almost out of habit, but the results substantiate my argument. Look at all the Black women who have won Miss America, and you will see that they have in common a light skin tone. For example, when Vanessa Williams, a light-skinned Black woman, was stripped of her crown after she won in 1984, she was replaced by the lighter, thinner Suzette Charles, another thisclose to white African American contestant.

    There is nothing wrong with being of a light complexion. Unless you're bleaching your skin (RIP Mike Jackson), you can't control gene-dictated skin hue. And everyone has their preferences. But it kinda leaves the dark-skinned sisters with the big, round booties on the outside looking in - assuming they even make it out of their respective states and into the national contest. Sadly, most of them don't.

    One other difference - the Miss Black USA does not have, and never had, a swimsuit competition. Many of the contestants feel uncomfortable about parading around in what is basically a bra-and-panties show. Good luck taking THAT out of the Miss America contest.

    There are valid reasons why some feel the need to have their very own pageants to showcase young ladies in the way they feel they should be showcased. It has nothing to do with being racist. They are separate. They are definitely not equal. And maybe it should remain that way.
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1879497].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      Rob...

      On the list of Obama "accomplishments", there are a few things on the list I wasn't aware of, and I'll gladly chalk those up in his column.

      Many of the others sound good, but that's it. Calling for reviews and lists of possible things to do just gives some bureaucrats something to do - until those reviews actually accomplish something, they're just more paperwork in the archives.

      If the health insurance bill passes, and it sounds like they'll be able to ram it through, he'll sign something into law that he doesn't know the contents of. No one really does. At last report, the bill was well over a thousand pages, not including supplements and amendments. Try telling me that he or anyone else connected with it knows just what's in it. And that scares me. It would scare me no matter who was in the White House.

      If it turns out to be a good thing, I'll happily credit him for it. If it turns out to be a boondoggle that does more harm than good, I hope he gets credit for that as well.

      On the pageant issue, I'll bow to your superior insider knowledge.

      More contests = more winners = more money is something I can wrap my head around.

      So is the "different standards of beauty" argument. No problems, there.

      On the basis of those points, the more the merrier. I just don't buy that the contests for specific ethnic groups need to exist purely because of racial discrimination anymore.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881539].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
        Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

        Rob...

        On the list of Obama "accomplishments", there are a few things on the list I wasn't aware of, and I'll gladly chalk those up in his column.

        Many of the others sound good, but that's it. Calling for reviews and lists of possible things to do just gives some bureaucrats something to do - until those reviews actually accomplish something, they're just more paperwork in the archives.

        If the health insurance bill passes, and it sounds like they'll be able to ram it through, he'll sign something into law that he doesn't know the contents of. No one really does. At last report, the bill was well over a thousand pages, not including supplements and amendments. Try telling me that he or anyone else connected with it knows just what's in it. And that scares me. It would scare me no matter who was in the White House.

        If it turns out to be a good thing, I'll happily credit him for it. If it turns out to be a boondoggle that does more harm than good, I hope he gets credit for that as well.

        On the pageant issue, I'll bow to your superior insider knowledge.

        More contests = more winners = more money is something I can wrap my head around.

        So is the "different standards of beauty" argument. No problems, there.

        On the basis of those points, the more the merrier. I just don't buy that the contests for specific ethnic groups need to exist purely because of racial discrimination anymore.

        Perhaps you have the present prez mixed up with the previous prez when you talk about Obama not knowing what's in the bill.

        Are you claiming that he should memorize and know every word of the bill?

        I'm sure he knows every important provision in the bill:

        I distinctly remember another president's announcement for the office and the guy couldn't make the announcement without looking down a index card in his hand.

        It was only 2 or 3 lines.

        It went something like this...

        I am announcing that I am running for... ( looks down at index card )

        Looks up and then says...

        ...President of the United States.


        Anyhooos,


        FYI...


        What's in the bill?

        What does the bill do???

        It's pretty simple for those not caught up in the noise machine.

        OK...

        - No longer will HC companies be able to drop folks like a hot rock when they are needed most:

        - No American has to worry about a med problem destroying their financial life ever again:
        ( same as most Europeans )

        - Bankruptcies caused by med probs will drastically decline from at least 750,000 per year.

        - HC' cos will not be able to make people pay crazy co-pays etc., and other slick gimmicks in order to cut their own expenses etc.

        - About 30 million people that could not afford HC will now get it.

        - All children will be covered.

        - Seniors will finally get that doughnut hole closed so they won't have to come out of pocket for any meds.

        BTW...

        The 900 billion med prescription bill passed by the previous admin via reconciliation & put on the nation's credit card, could at least have done that - but of typically it didn't.

        - The non-partisian CBO ( Congressional Budget Office ) says the plan will save the nation 138 bill over the next 10 years.

        and...

        It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period.

        - The bill is paid for in a number of ways through smart savings and higher taxes and...

        ... 98% of the American people will not have to pay anything extra in taxes etc. to pay for the bill.

        - No fed HC funds can be used for abortion - the Hyde Amendment lives on.

        - There never was and is not now anything known as a death panel in the bill - simply counseling for older folks.

        - The bill will not take over the almost 2 trill dollar national HC industry in one fell swoop.

        - There is no public option such as medicare for anyone willing to pay their way in.

        Is the bill perfect?

        Absolutely not.

        But...

        People as diverse as the 59K strong Catholic Nuns Association and the AARP support the bill.

        Is it 10X better than what we have now?

        Absolutely yes.

        Once again this was FYI...

        All The Best!

        TL
        Signature

        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882969].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

          Perhaps you have the present prez mixed up with the previous prez when you talk about Obama not knowing what's in the bill.

          Are you claiming that he should memorize and know every word of the bill?

          I'm sure he knows every important provision in the bill:

          What's in the bill?

          What does the bill do???

          It's pretty simple for those not caught up in the noise machine.

          OK...

          - No longer will HC companies be able to drop folks like a hot rock when they are needed most:

          - No American has to worry about a med problem destroying their financial life ever again:
          ( same as most Europeans )

          - Bankruptcies caused by med probs will drastically decline from at least 750,000 per year.

          - HC' cos will not be able to make people pay crazy co-pays etc., and other slick gimmicks in order to cut their own expenses etc.

          - About 30 million people that could not afford HC will now get it.

          - All children will be covered.

          - Seniors will finally get that doughnut hole closed so they won't have to come out of pocket for any meds.

          BTW...

          The 900 billion med prescription bill passed by the previous admin via reconciliation & put on the nation's credit card, could at least have done that - but of typically it didn't.

          - The non-partisian CBO ( Congressional Budget Office ) says the plan will save the nation 138 bill over the next 10 years.

          and...

          It will cut the deficit by $1.2 trillion over the second ten year period.

          - The bill is paid for in a number of ways through smart savings and higher taxes and...

          ... 98% of the American people will not have to pay anything extra in taxes etc. to pay for the bill.

          - No fed HC funds can be used for abortion - the Hyde Amendment lives on.

          - There never was and is not now anything known as a death panel in the bill - simply counseling for older folks.

          - The bill will not take over the almost 2 trill dollar national HC industry in one fell swoop.

          - There is no public option such as medicare for anyone willing to pay their way in.

          Is the bill perfect?

          Absolutely not.

          But...

          People as diverse as the 59K strong Catholic Nuns Association and the AARP support the bill.

          Is it 10X better than what we have now?

          Absolutely yes.

          Once again this was FYI...

          All The Best!

          TL
          What you claim is in "THE BILL" was NEVER in any of the others! But there is NO "THE BILL". Even PELOSI admitted that.

          So if Obama said he knew what was in it, he would be wrong. Nobody has seen it. Only SOME have discussed it.

          They HOPE they will have something like this wednesday, but they will VOTE on SUNDAY!
          SIGHT UNSEEN! Pelosi: 'We'll Take Up the Bill When We Are Ready' - The Note

          BTW Some catholic NUNS support it, but the catholic bishops DON'T! FOXNews.com - Holy War Erupts Among Catholics Over Abortion Language in Health Care Bill

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883248].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            TL, you're obviously on the DNC mailing list with the full list of talking points on what the bill is supposed to do. I'm not faulting Obama for not memorizing it. I'm saying that no one knows exactly what little Easter eggs are hidden in the thousands of pages of text, filtered through a raft of career bureaucrats (aka career staffers - many of whom are passed along like the office furniture). The people responsible for passing the bill know only what their staffers tell them is in it, and in the main, the staffers know the sections they've worked on.

            Will it be better than what we have now? I truly hope so.

            Will it miraculously accomplish everything on that list? I doubt it.

            If all the previous sweeping reforms (from both sides of the aisle) actually accomplished the miracles they were supposed to accomplish, this whole discussion would not be necessary.

            My guess is that something will pass, and anyone involved in passing it will crow about it until the day after the interim elections. Then in 10-15 years we'll be "fixing health care" again to undo both the unintended consequences of well-meaning provisions and the loopholes designed to line the pockets of greedy and corrupt.

            [See Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.]
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1883354].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

              TL, you're obviously on the DNC mailing list with the full list of talking points on what the bill is supposed to do. I'm not faulting Obama for not memorizing it. I'm saying that no one knows exactly what little Easter eggs are hidden in the thousands of pages of text, filtered through a raft of career bureaucrats (aka career staffers - many of whom are passed along like the office furniture). The people responsible for passing the bill know only what their staffers tell them is in it, and in the main, the staffers know the sections they've worked on.

              Will it be better than what we have now? I truly hope so.

              Will it miraculously accomplish everything on that list? I doubt it.

              If all the previous sweeping reforms (from both sides of the aisle) actually accomplished the miracles they were supposed to accomplish, this whole discussion would not be necessary.

              My guess is that something will pass, and anyone involved in passing it will crow about it until the day after the interim elections. Then in 10-15 years we'll be "fixing health care" again to undo both the unintended consequences of well-meaning provisions and the loopholes designed to line the pockets of greedy and corrupt.

              [See Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.]

              What on Earth are you talking about?

              Those career staffers you talk about work for the senators and congressmen and I'm sure the Prez will have his lawyers check it out before he signs it to confirm the main points and principles of the bill are as they agreed upon.

              The career staffers you talk about are mostly in places like the DOJ and other branches of gov, not congress.

              If their congressional boss loses, they go home with them.

              - It's silly to say the Prez or Pelosi didn't know what was in the bill before the CBO scored it since they and the dem leadership put it together.

              - Regarding Trojan horses & graft in the bill...

              What are you gana do?

              Even if it allowed for let's say 50 billion ( which I doubt ) to be peeled off every year as far as I'm concerned...

              As long as major concerns are met and it doesn't add to bankrupting the nation - according to the CBO I can live with it.


              Speaking of talking points...

              If it's supposed to be in the bill, then it's supposed to be in the bill - as scored by the CBO.

              Will everything work like clock work? I doubt it.

              But major concerns and problems in our HC system will be addressed.

              Speaking of talking points...

              - You claiming you don't know and even the Prez or Pelosi doesn't know, what's in the bill earlier, is in fact, a talking point of the opponents of reform.

              ( I'm not saying your a republican operative or anything like that )

              - You even used the buzz phrase of "ramming it through" - another talking point of the opponents of HC reform.

              - The other side has used all of the parliamentary tricks now being bandied about as super evil on numerous occasions when they had the numbers to do so for their pet legislation.

              I love it when they say "but those parliamentary tricks have not been used for something this big."

              Well, there's always a first time for most anything. (LOL)

              Sure they hope to make the bill better with tweaks as we go along - such as soon as they get the votes, perhaps a public option to go along with our private system already in place.

              I'm not happy about the public option not being in the bill - but there's always next time.

              If this bill passes and becomes law, sure they'll crow about it until the cows come home since no one has been able to pass any significant HC legislation since medicare went through the same type of big, ugly & nasty fight in the 60's.

              - The Nuns bucked and went against the Bishops who didn't have a position on it one way or another.

              Big time legislation that would help lots of people and stop the medical related carnage and the Bishops had no position on it what-so-ever.

              I say "3 cheers for the Nuns!"

              Fed Gov Incompetence:

              - Your suspicions about the incompetence of the federal government are well founded.

              - Most Americans felt we had a very competent fed gov from the 1950's until 1980 ( America's Golden Age )...

              ... when the entire tone changed as someone rode into the presidency with the battle cry of "Government is not the solution - Government is the problem!"

              and IMHO...

              Starting in 1980 some people ( guess who? ) got hard at work so that a large hunk of the American populace would develop an overly negative attitude...

              ...regarding the federal gov to the point that they would fear any action by the feds even when common sense and pragmatism dictate major action regarding big probs in our society is clearly needed.

              IMHO...

              90% of those people don't even know whom to be angry at because some public officials have clearly been a lot worse than others for the nation.

              Don't get me wrong,...

              ... suspicion of the fed gov is an American right and it's very healthy to a point but there's a large hunk of the population that's has allowed it...

              ... to be turned against themselves as they are being used to try to prevent the fed gov from enacting desperately needed fixes - on a number of issues, that only the feds can do.


              Just another chapter in The American Drama.

              All The Best!!

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1884320].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - It's silly to say the Prez or Pelosi didn't know what was in the bill before the CBO scored it since they and the dem leadership put it together.
                YEA, it IS. It is SICK! But that IS the case!

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - - Regarding Trojan horses & graft in the bill...

                What are you gana do?

                Even if it allowed for let's say 50 billion ( which I doubt ) to be peeled off every year as far as I'm concerned...

                As long as major concerns are met and it doesn't add to bankrupting the nation - according to the CBO I can live with it.
                Yep, it is EASY to "live with it" if YOU aren'r paying and you or your friends somehow benefit.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - Speaking of talking points...

                If it's supposed to be in the bill, then it's supposed to be in the bill - as scored by the CBO.
                YEP, and we are SUPPOSED to be at peace with no inflation, no unemployment, fantastic schools for all for free, REAL social security, etc.... The very fact that you await this bill sayss your last statement was wrong, so what is your point?

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - But major concerns and problems in our HC system will be addressed.
                Frankly, all the MAJOR concerns WERE addressed. THIS makes them concerns again. They supposedly released the last **DRAFT**, not the actual bill, yesterday. I'll probably try to get it tonight. I HOPE it doesn't have the old garbage. Legally though, it has to. If it doesn't, it has to be voted on in BOTH houses all over again.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - You claiming you don't know and even the Prez or Pelosi doesn't know, what's in the bill earlier, is in fact, a talking point of the opponents of reform.
                GEE, PELOSI is against "reform"? I didn't know that! Do us all a favor and let pelosi and obama know that. SHE thinks she is FOR it.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - You even used the buzz phrase of "ramming it through" - another talking point of the opponents of HC reform.
                I thought the democrats were FOR this.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - The other side has used all of the parliamentary tricks now being bandied about as super evil on numerous occasions when they had the numbers to do so for their pet legislation.
                Never on anything like THIS!

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - I love it when they say "but those parliamentary tricks have not been used for something this big."

                Well, there's always a first time for most anything. (LOL)
                go ahead and laugh, but it IS ramming it through, so you contradicted yourself.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - If this bill passes and becomes law, sure they'll crow about it until the cows come home since no one has been able to pass any significant HC legislation since medicare went through the same type of big, ugly & nasty fight in the 60's.
                Yeah, THEN they actually allowed OUTSIDE insurers to help. Great for EVERYONE on the plan, and the government. Probably MOST on medicare use an OUTSIDE insurer. The new "HCP" plans to SCRAP THAT! And it is STILL going bankrupt. and even OBAMA is still talking about "the doughnut hole".

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - The Nuns bucked and went against the Bishops who didn't have a position on it one way or another.

                Big time legislation that would help lots of people and stop the medical related carnage and the Bishops had no position on it what-so-ever.
                Actually, they were/are against it.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                - Your suspicions about the incompetence of the federal government are well founded.

                - Most Americans felt we had a very competent fed gov from the 1950's until 1980 ( America's Golden Age )...
                No they didn't!
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885254].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                  It's not ramming through. The Senate passed their bill with a super majority and now the house will pass the Senate bill. Reconciliation is just a way to make some fixes to the Senate bill that the house wanted.

                  Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                  go ahead and laugh, but it IS ramming it through, so you contradicted yourself.
                  Signature
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885409].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                    Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                    It's not ramming through. The Senate passed their bill with a super majority and now the house will pass the Senate bill. Reconciliation is just a way to make some fixes to the Senate bill that the house wanted.
                    Tim a question.
                    If it's not being rammed through, how come Polosi is thinking of changing the rules to get it through?
                    Also if it is such a great bill why would she have to do that?
                    Pelosi Tactic for Health-Care Vote Would Raise Legal Questions - Bloomberg.com
                    Signature

                    Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                    Getting old ain't for sissy's
                    As you are I was, as I am you will be
                    You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885557].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                      That's regarding the "deem" tactic which is being considered more for political reasons. Using reconciliation is different. Personally I don't think they need to deem and pass. However, deeming has been used hundreds of times before.

                      Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                      Tim a question.
                      If it's not being rammed through, how come Polosi is thinking of changing the rules to get it through?
                      Also if it is such a great bill why would she have to do that?
                      Pelosi Tactic for Health-Care Vote Would Raise Legal Questions - Bloomberg.com
                      Signature
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885602].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author ThomM
                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                        That's regarding the "deem" tactic which is being considered more for political reasons. Using reconciliation is different. Personally I don't think they need to deem and pass. However, deeming has been used hundreds of times before.
                        So does that make it right?
                        My congressman has been on the news a lot here lately.
                        Seems he's one of the rare birds who has read every page in the bill.
                        He's a democrat who has said he will not vote in favor of the bill because of all the pork and other items that have been added to it.
                        Like he said, we need to reform our health care system, that's a given.
                        He also said there is a difference between doing something and doing something right. This bill in his words is just doing something.
                        Signature

                        Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
                        Getting old ain't for sissy's
                        As you are I was, as I am you will be
                        You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885669].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                          I don't know if because others used deem and pass it makes it right or wrong. I'm not a constitutional lawyer. I prefer the Dems not to use the deem tactic and just stand the hell up for what they believe. Frankly too many Dems in congress just don't have a spine and are too worried about getting reelected. That's why the deem and pass is being considered.

                          I don't even like the health bill all that much. To me it's pretty weak without a public option or a medicare buyin. I prefer Medicare for all. Single payer. This health care bill is almost as unpopular to progressives as it is to the so called conservatives. Without a public option it's a huge windfall to the insurance companies and they have been proven not to have our best interests at heart.

                          That said, the bill has a LOT of good things in it, some of which TL addresses. Every year 60,000 Americans die because of lack of health care. That's unacceptable for a country that thinks of itself as the best country in the world. This bill in flawed but is a step forward and is better than doing nothing and keeping the status quo. It can improved upon in the future. Perhaps the immediate future. So, I think your congressman is dead wrong to vote against it and I hope he pays the price at the next election. Kick him out.

                          Originally Posted by ThomM View Post

                          So does that make it right?
                          My congressman has been on the news a lot here lately.
                          Seems he's one of the rare birds who has read every page in the bill.
                          He's a democrat who has said he will not vote in favor of the bill because of all the pork and other items that have been added to it.
                          Like he said, we need to reform our health care system, that's a given.
                          He also said there is a difference between doing something and doing something right. This bill in his words is just doing something.
                          Signature
                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    John,

    I did not post the list of President Obama's accomplishments, haven't made a comment on that list, and really don't plan to address anything regarding President Obama on this thread. So you might want to address your Obama comments to someone other than me.

    But what I did want to address is the statement you made a few posts earlier. It want a little something like this:

    Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

    Now that we've had several black Miss Americas and the ratio of black contestants to white is actually higher than the ratio of blacks to whites in the general population, I think it's time to merge the two contests.
    Really John? According to WikiAnswers.com, Blacks make up about 12.9 % of the American population and whites about 80%. The ratio breaks down to about 1 black for every 6.15 whites. Unless I did the math wrong, that pretty much means that of the 53 contestants, at least 10 of them would have had to be Black in order to make your statement approach anything close to accuracy. (53 because you have to add in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).

    I challenge you to find me any year -recent or otherwise - where 10 Black women competed for the title of Miss America.

    Dude, you can't just come to the thread and drop statistics that have absolutely no basis in fact. I'm sure somebody read that post and is walking around believing it to be true, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort.

    You should be a little more careful next time. Use the IMHO tag (In My Humble Opinion) so that people know that what you're saying is opinion instead of some "fact" that can't be substantiated because it does not exist in the real world.
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

      Really John? According to WikiAnswers.com, Blacks make up about 12.9 % of the American population and whites about 80%. The ratio breaks down to about 1 black for every 6.15 whites. Unless I did the math wrong, that pretty much means that of the 53 contestants, at least 10 of them would have had to be Black in order to make your statement approach anything close to accuracy. (53 because you have to add in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).

      I challenge you to find me any year -recent or otherwise - where 10 Black women competed for the title of Miss America.

      Dude, you can't just come to the thread and drop statistics that have absolutely no basis in fact. I'm sure somebody read that post and is walking around believing it to be true, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort.

      You should be a little more careful next time. Use the IMHO tag (In My Humble Opinion) so that people know that what you're saying is opinion instead of some "fact" that can't be substantiated because it does not exist in the real world.
      There is no way 80% are white. Maybe you are speaking in general terms of race. Even THEN it is doubtful. But what about hispanics, semetics, etc....?

      According to CIA facts:

      white 79.96%, black 12.85%, Asian 4.43%, Amerindian and Alaska native 0.97%, native Hawaiian and other Pacific islander 0.18%, two or more races 1.61% (July 2007 estimate)
      note: a separate listing for Hispanic is not included because the US Census Bureau considers Hispanic to mean persons of Spanish/Hispanic/Latino origin including those of Mexican, Cuban, Puerto Rican, Dominican Republic, Spanish, and Central or South American origin living in the US who may be of any race or ethnic group (white, black, Asian, etc.); about 15.1% of the total US population is Hispanic

      So OBVIOUSLY, these are WRONG! They ADMIT that just PART of the error is 15.1%! A fair number of those are probably what they consider white, so that means LESS than 65% white! NOW, how many of the 65% do you figure are ethnic jews or arab? I mean if you are going to consider them MINORITIES, etc... count them differently from whites, then DON'T include them with whites. And HECK, some parts of the US have a LOT of blacks. It isn't like everything is evenly distributed.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881811].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
      A couple of mea culpas here...

      I apologize for directing my Obama comments to you. They should have been directed to Tim.

      As to the racial makeup of the Miss America pageant, I plead the Torii Hunter defense.

      Torii Hunter is a MLB player who has long championed getting more African-Americans, particularly inner-city and at-risk kids, involved with organized baseball. Hunter is one of the good guys in baseball. He is African-American.

      He recently caught heat for a statement similar to mine. When asked about all the black Latino players, he said that they were not black, they were Latino, even though their roots likely went back to the same continent as Hunter's.

      The last time I watched Miss America (and it's been a couple of years) I saw a fairly large number of contestants with dark skin. I imagine that some of them were probably classed as Latinas rather than blacks.



      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

      John,

      I did not post the list of President Obama's accomplishments, haven't made a comment on that list, and really don't plan to address anything regarding President Obama on this thread. So you might want to address your Obama comments to someone other than me.

      But what I did want to address is the statement you made a few posts earlier. It want a little something like this:



      Really John? According to WikiAnswers.com, Blacks make up about 12.9 % of the American population and whites about 80%. The ratio breaks down to about 1 black for every 6.15 whites. Unless I did the math wrong, that pretty much means that of the 53 contestants, at least 10 of them would have had to be Black in order to make your statement approach anything close to accuracy. (53 because you have to add in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).

      I challenge you to find me any year -recent or otherwise - where 10 Black women competed for the title of Miss America.

      Dude, you can't just come to the thread and drop statistics that have absolutely no basis in fact. I'm sure somebody read that post and is walking around believing it to be true, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort.

      You should be a little more careful next time. Use the IMHO tag (In My Humble Opinion) so that people know that what you're saying is opinion instead of some "fact" that can't be substantiated because it does not exist in the real world.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882019].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

      John,

      I did not post the list of President Obama's accomplishments, haven't made a comment on that list, and really don't plan to address anything regarding President Obama on this thread. So you might want to address your Obama comments to someone other than me.

      But what I did want to address is the statement you made a few posts earlier. It want a little something like this:



      Really John? According to WikiAnswers.com, Blacks make up about 12.9 % of the American population and whites about 80%. The ratio breaks down to about 1 black for every 6.15 whites. Unless I did the math wrong, that pretty much means that of the 53 contestants, at least 10 of them would have had to be Black in order to make your statement approach anything close to accuracy. (53 because you have to add in the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands).

      I challenge you to find me any year -recent or otherwise - where 10 Black women competed for the title of Miss America.

      Dude, you can't just come to the thread and drop statistics that have absolutely no basis in fact. I'm sure somebody read that post and is walking around believing it to be true, when in actuality it is nothing of the sort.

      You should be a little more careful next time. Use the IMHO tag (In My Humble Opinion) so that people know that what you're saying is opinion instead of some "fact" that can't be substantiated because it does not exist in the real world.
      Just because they weren't qualified to compete doesnt mean they weren't allowed to compete.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885168].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
        This statement doesn't even make any sense with the post you quoted. They weren't even talking about being "qualified" or "allowed" to compete, but were talking about percentages.

        By the way, before 1970 it was very clear minorities were not allowed at all. There was even a rule in the official rule book saying "contestants must be of good health and of the white race." Hell, up until 1940 they required contestants to list, on their formal biological data sheet, how far back they could trace their ancestry.

        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

        Just because they weren't qualified to compete doesnt mean they weren't allowed to compete.
        Signature
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885395].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          And so now...30+ years later...what is the justification for a black only pagent?

          Yes, the post was talking about being qualified. Just because a certain race makes up a percentage of the population, doesnt mean automatic entry into a pagent. Either the female is qualified (meaning she's won her way to the Miss America Pagent...or she didnt. Skin tone doesnt automatically mean you get a place in the pagent because your race makes up a certain percentage of the population.

          Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

          This statement doesn't even make any sense with the post you quoted. They weren't even talking about being "qualified" or "allowed" to compete, but were talking about percentages.

          By the way, before 1970 it was very clear minorities were not allowed at all. There was even a rule in the official rule book saying "contestants must be of good health and of the white race." Hell, up until 1940 they required contestants to list, on their formal biological data sheet, how far back they could trace their ancestry.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885408].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
            Why shouldn't there be one? What's the justification of the German Miss America? Or Italian?

            You completely missed the point they were discussing apparently. It had nothing to do with saying there should be a certain percentage of blacks in the contest.

            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            And so now...30+ years later...what is the justification for a black only pagent?

            Yes, the post was talking about being qualified. Just because a certain race makes up a percentage of the population, doesnt mean automatic entry into a pagent. Either the female is qualified (meaning she's won her way to the Miss America Pagent...or she didnt. Skin tone doesnt automatically mean you get a place in the pagent because your race makes up a certain percentage of the population.
            Signature
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885415].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

              Why shouldn't there be one? What's the justification of the German Miss America? Or Italian?

              You completely missed the point they were discussing apparently. It had nothing to do with saying there should be a certain percentage of blacks in the contest.
              Why should there be one? You can't have it both ways, either you're equal or you're seperate, and you dont get to pick when you are equal or when you are seperate. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

              Pay attention...for the second time: Race and nationality are not the same thing.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885424].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                Ridiculous. Read the post by Affiliate Rob. He explains the reasons why there should be these smaller pageants. Gee, John could understand why. How come you can't?

                Yes, genius. I know race and nationality are different. What hasn't been explained is why you think a black miss America pageant is not needed but an Italian or German one somehow is. German Americans are also allowed in the Miss America contest, therefore according to your logic they don't need a Miss German America contest.

                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                Why should there be one? You can't have it both ways, either you're equal or you're seperate, and you dont get to pick when you are equal or when you are seperate. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

                Pay attention...for the second time: Race and nationality are not the same thing.
                Signature
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885451].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                  I dont think a german, italian or any subset is required.

                  Its the Miss America pagent. As Roosevelt said..'There is no room for hyphenated Americans in this country. If you are citizen of America..you are an American...not a xxxxx-american.

                  Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                  Ridiculous. Read the post by Affiliate Rob. He explains the reasons why there should be these smaller pageants. Gee, John could understand why. How come you can't?

                  Yes, genius. I know race and nationality are different. What hasn't been explained is why you think a black miss America pageant is not needed but an Italian or German one somehow is. German Americans are also allowed in the Miss America contest, therefore according to your logic they don't need a Miss German America contest.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885486].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author KimW
                    Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                    ... As Roosevelt said..'There is no room for hyphenated Americans in this country. If you are citizen of America..you are an American...not a xxxxx-american.
                    Michael, Can you give me a source for this,because it is one of the strongest concepts I have for bring the people of America together.


                    Everyone else, this thread is NOT about the health care bill, which we desperaretly need,whether you like the idea or not even if its going to sost you an extra $10 a week out of your paycheck.

                    How about getting this thread back on topic and starting another for discussions od other topics.
                    Signature

                    Read A Post.
                    Subscribe to a Newsletter
                    KimWinfrey.Com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885905].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                      Michael, Can you give me a source for this,because it is one of the strongest concepts I have for bring the people of America together.


                      Everyone else, this thread is NOT about the health care bill, which we desperaretly need,whether you like the idea or not even if its going to sost you an extra $10 a week out of your paycheck.

                      How about getting this thread back on topic and starting another for discussions od other topics.
                      I think everyone knows we're all Americans.

                      That hyphenated stuff...

                      It's just a simple way to identify particular "groups" of Americans when talking about them and most do not mind - as they use that language on themselves.

                      That's a lot of typing to type in or a lot to say...

                      Americans of ________ decent,

                      so everyone says ________ -American.

                      How else are we going to identify a particular group of Americans when discussing them?

                      How it started and what it means now are two totally different things.

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885954].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author KimW
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        I think everyone knows we're all Americans.

                        That hyphenated stuff...

                        It's just a simple way to identify particular "groups" of Americans when talking about them and most do not mind - as they use that language on themselves.

                        That's a lot of typing to type in or say...

                        Americans of ________ decent, instead of ________ -American.

                        TL
                        No offense but your wrong. Why is there even any need to mention your area of descent?
                        There isn't.
                        Signature

                        Read A Post.
                        Subscribe to a Newsletter
                        KimWinfrey.Com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885984].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                          No offense but your wrong. Why is there even any need to mention your area of descent?
                          There isn't.

                          No offense taken.

                          Perhaps for reasons of simply facilitating any discussion related to and involving any particular group of people in this country etc.

                          What do you want man?????

                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886026].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        I think everyone knows we're all Americans.

                        That hyphenated stuff...

                        It's just a simple way to identify particular "groups" of Americans when talking about them and most do not mind - as they use that language on themselves.

                        That's a lot of typing to type in or a lot to say...

                        Americans of ________ decent,

                        so everyone says ________ -American.

                        How else are we going to identify a particular group of Americans when discussing them?

                        How it started and what it means now are two totally different things.

                        TL
                        The point is there arent particular groups of Americans. There are Americans.

                        Ever heard the term 'melting pot?' Yeah...that would be America. When you become a citizen, you are an American..thats all.


                        As the great Mr. Miaggi said...'walk on right side of road, safe, walk on left side of road, safe...walk down the middle..sooner or later squish like grape.'
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886004].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                          The point is there arent particular groups of Americans. There are Americans.

                          Ever heard the term 'melting pot?' Yeah...that would be America. When you become a citizen, you are an American..thats all.


                          As the great Mr. Miaggi said...'walk on right side of road, safe, walk on left side of road, safe...walk down the middle..sooner or later squish like grape.'

                          And there are also...

                          ...Americans of various backgrounds, so how on earth do we have a discussion about for example, their particular cultures, dishes, wedding practices etc. if we don't use some type of term etc.???

                          How do we talk about the joys of St. Patrick's day without mentioning you know who.

                          How do we talk about the fun of Beerfest without talking about __________???

                          I remember our discussion on Columbus day at this forum, and I used the term Italian American and somebody ( was it you again? ) invoked the same argument you're using now.

                          I quickly apologized but then a member of that particular "group" said it was quite OK and they used it themselves.


                          I don't think most Americans have a problem if we use those terms when necessary for discussion etc.

                          The important thing for everyone to remember is that we all share a common destiny in the country and most people understand that.

                          I'm not wrong, it's simply a difference of opinion and this simple language distinction does not divide anyone.

                          I'm now going to eat lunch and watch a episode of Bat Masterson.



                          TL

                          Ps. Are nicknames OK??
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886104].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                            And there are also...

                            ...Americans of various backgrounds, so how on earth do we have a discussion about for example, their particular cultures, dishes, wedding practices etc. if we don't use some type of term etc.???
                            because we dont care about their particular cultures, dishes, wedding practices. If those were so great where they came from...then head your a$$ back there and partake in those dishes, wedding practices and cultures. But if you come to America to be a citizen..then you are an American citizen. If you dont like the idea that you are supposed to come here and assimilate the culture of this country..then dont come, nobody will miss you.

                            I live in florida...there is a bumper sticker that you will see on every native floridans car that says 'WE DONT CARE HOW YOU DID IT UP NORTH'

                            That applies to the whole country.

                            and most of the people that say they are a xxxx-american arent really.

                            Sorry, but if you're black and born in detroit, never seen africa, your parents, grandparents, great grand parents were born here, you're not african american. You're just american..deal with it.
                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886142].message }}
                            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                              Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                              because we dont care about their particular cultures, dishes, wedding practices. If those were so great where they came from...then head your a$$ back there and partake in those dishes, wedding practices and cultures. But if you come to America to be a citizen..then you are an American citizen. If you dont like the idea that you are supposed to come here and assimilate the culture of this country..then dont come, nobody will miss you.

                              I live in florida...there is a bumper sticker that you will see on every native floridans car that says 'WE DONT CARE HOW YOU DID IT UP NORTH'

                              That applies to the whole country.

                              and most of the people that say they are a xxxx-american arent really.

                              Sorry, but if you're black and born in detroit, never seen africa, your parents, grandparents, great grand parents were born here, you're not african american. You're just american..deal with it.
                              Alright Mike,

                              Whether you like it or not most groups in this country have their particularities ( big and small/ a few or many ) that they have maintained to this day, and we also, all have a common American culture...

                              ... which is also made up of a bunch of cultures merging into the common American culture.

                              Is it OK with you for all these folks with different backgrounds to keep their traditions etc., and also participate in the common American culture or should they simply totally abandon everything that helps define them as a group?

                              For example...

                              - Should ________________ stop breaking a glass and carrying the bride and groom on chairs after the marriage vows?


                              - Should some ___________________ stop jumping the broom during the wedding vows?


                              - Should __________ refrain from allowing guests the honor of giving the bride and groom money by stuffing money down the bride's cleavage?


                              Are you saying all that cool stuff must stop?????

                              I repeat, what terminology should we use when we talk about Americans of different backgrounds??

                              How do we identify whom we're talking about in conversations?

                              Could I also be referred to as an American of African decent?

                              If I use that terminology could I just be wrong and still be an American or...

                              ... must I turn in my passport and "go back to Africa"?

                              I heard someone who's an American refer to themselves as a proud Irishman on this forum on St Patrick's Day.

                              ( I suspect he was talking to another American who also happened to be descended from the Emerald Isle )

                              Does that mean they're not American???

                              Is that language unacceptable to you?

                              I'm done here with the hypen-stuff...


                              ...but I'm willing to bet that if there was a national poll, most people would not have a major problem with it and won't go anywhere near where you've taken it.


                              All The Best!!!!

                              TL
                              Signature

                              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886551].message }}
                              • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                Alright Mike,

                                Whether you like it or not most groups in this country have their particularities ( big and small/ a few or many ) that they have maintained to this day, and we also, all have a common American culture...

                                ... which is also made up of a bunch of cultures merging into the common American culture.

                                Is it OK with you for all these folks with different backgrounds to keep their traditions etc., and also participate in the common American culture or should they simply totally abandon everything that helps define them as a group?

                                For example...

                                - Should ________________ stop breaking a glass and carrying the bride and groom on chairs after the marriage vows?


                                - Should some ___________________ stop jumping the broom during the wedding vows?


                                - Should __________ refrain from allowing guests the honor of giving the bride and groom money by stuffing money down the bride's cleavage?


                                Are you saying all that cool stuff must stop?????

                                I repeat, what terminology should we use when we talk about Americans of different backgrounds??

                                How do we identify whom we're talking about in conversations?

                                Could I also be referred to as an American of African decent?

                                If I use that terminology could I just be wrong and still be an American or...

                                ... must I turn in my passport and "go back to Africa"?

                                I heard someone who's an American refer to themselves as a proud Irishman on this forum on St Patrick's Day.

                                ( I suspect he was talking to another American who also happened to be descended from the Emerald Isle )

                                Does that mean they're not American???

                                Is that language unacceptable to you?

                                I'm done here with the hypen-stuff...


                                ...but I'm willing to bet that if there was a national poll, most people would not have a major problem with it and won't go anywhere near where you've taken it.


                                All The Best!!!!

                                TL
                                you need only read that one sentence with the huge word in it to answer all your own questions.
                                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886709].message }}
                                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                  Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                                  you need only read that one sentence with the huge word in it to answer all your own questions.
                                  Yea, but should people give up all their particular stuff or get the hell out of America???
                                  Note: I'm not talking about newcomers.

                                  What's your answer???

                                  I'd love to hear it.

                                  TL
                                  Signature

                                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886730].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                                    Yea, but should people give up all their particular stuff or get the hell out of America???
                                    Note: I'm not talking about newcomers.

                                    What's your answer???

                                    I'd love to hear it.

                                    TL
                                    Your first job as a citizen of THIS country is to meld with the culture of THIS country, not replace what you don't like with leftovers of where you...or your ancestors 4 generations back came from.
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886816].message }}
                                    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
                                      Wrong. I like the diversity of this country. When I am in San Francisco I sometimes go to Chinatown and enjoy it because it is so different. It isn't anyones "job" to "meld" into any so called American culture. BS as usual.

                                      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                                      Your first job as a citizen of THIS country is to meld with the culture of THIS country, not replace what you don't like with leftovers of where you...or your ancestors 4 generations back came from.
                                      Signature
                                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886908].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                        Wrong. I like the diversity of this country. When I am in San Francisco I sometimes go to Chinatown and enjoy it because it is so different. It isn't anyones "job" to "meld" into any so called American culture. BS as usual.
                                        Mr. M. has gone way overboard and I'm sure a healthy 70% of Americans who's families have been here for generations will agree.

                                        Nothing personal but...

                                        He's getting quite ugly & also corny in his self righteous my way or the highway - cultural indignation.

                                        TL
                                        Signature

                                        "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886991].message }}
                                      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                                        Originally Posted by TimPhelan View Post

                                        Wrong. I like the diversity of this country. When I am in San Francisco I sometimes go to Chinatown and enjoy it because it is so different. It isn't anyones "job" to "meld" into any so called American culture. BS as usual.
                                        Wrong. It is EVERYONES job to meld with the culture. You dont go to mexico and they change everything to suit you do they? How about ANY country? You are going to them, they dont care if you come or not and aren't going to adjust to fit you. Same here.
                                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1895943].message }}
                                  • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                                    Regarding the merging of cultures and the great American melting pot...

                                    If we regard the contents of that pot as a stew, a collection of disparate ingredients that come together to make a delicious harmony of flavors, then assimilating into that melting pot is about adding layers of flavor rather than disappearing under the surface.

                                    I say we adopt or accept the best of the various cultures, and benefit from them. A few personal examples, sticking with the food theme...

                                    > I'd hate to give up soul food.

                                    > I'd hate to give up bagels and cream cheese.

                                    > Bratwurst mit sauerkraut, Oktoberfest, polka, what can I say?

                                    > How about curry, tandoori, etc.

                                    > Chinese food, both authentic and Americanized.

                                    > Mexican food, tequila, mescal, pulque, Tex-Mex...

                                    > Italian food - from pasta and sauce to cannoli.

                                    > I'm leaving a lot of cultures out because I haven't stopped to figure out the origins.

                                    Anyone care to try a similar list in the arts, fashion, philosophy, etc.?
                                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886833].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

                      Michael, Can you give me a source for this,because it is one of the strongest concepts I have for bring the people of America together.


                      Everyone else, this thread is NOT about the health care bill, which we desperaretly need,whether you like the idea or not even if its going to sost you an extra $10 a week out of your paycheck.

                      How about getting this thread back on topic and starting another for discussions od other topics.
                      I am not against a valid Healthcare bill.

                      HOPEFULLY you realize I would LOVE to see artificial organs made, so you wouldn't een HAVE to have dialysis, and I would LOVE to see dialysis come down in cost, etc... Lowering the PRICE, WITHOUT lowering the cost won't do it. The companies will just STOP providing the services/products.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885990].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author KimW
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        I am not against a valid Healthcare bill.

                        HOPEFULLY you realize I would LOVE to see artificial organs made, so you wouldn't een HAVE to have dialysis, and I would LOVE to see dialysis come down in cost, etc... Lowering the PRICE, WITHOUT lowering the cost won't do it. The companies will just STOP providing the services/products.

                        Steve
                        Yes Steve, I do realize that you and a lot of others are not against a national health care plan but are against the current proposed health care plan. I know there is a difference. The thing is,quite bluntly, I don't want to die while the healthy folks that don't need it argue about it.
                        Signature

                        Read A Post.
                        Subscribe to a Newsletter
                        KimWinfrey.Com

                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886112].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            And so now...30+ years later...what is the justification for a black only pagent?
            Because we have the right to have a pageant of our own just like any other "group" has the right to have a pageant of their own.

            Isn't there a Miss German American Pageant and others?

            As far as I'm concerned...

            It's all in good fun and now we can all get together at the national pageant, the Miss America Contest or the Miss USA thingy.

            How's that sound?

            TL
            Signature

            "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885455].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              So then you would have no problem with a White Miss America Pagent?



              Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

              Because we have the right to have a pageant of our own just like any other "group" has the right to have a pageant of their own.

              Isn't there a Miss German American Pageant and others?

              As far as I'm concerned...

              It's all in good fun and now we can all get together at the national pageant, the Miss America Contest or the Miss USA thingy.

              How's that sound?

              TL
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885478].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                So then you would have no problem with a White Miss America Pagent?

                Not at all, and it won't be the "official" Miss America pageant since not everyone is allowed to participate.

                For example the Miss World contest people wouldn't allow the Miss White America winner to enter the contest- only the real Miss America herself.

                But as far as I'm concerned it's all in good fun.


                BTW...

                Bess Myerson was the first Jewish, Miss America in I think it was 1953.

                TL

                Ps. Our Miss America recently crowned just happens to be a Black American and hails from the state of Virginia.
                Signature

                "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885530].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            Just because a certain race makes up a percentage of the population, doesnt mean automatic entry into a pagent. Either the female is qualified (meaning she's won her way to the Miss America Pagent...or she didnt. Skin tone doesnt automatically mean you get a place in the pagent because your race makes up a certain percentage of the population.
            Mike, just to remind you, the ONLY reason we're even discussing population percentages relative to these beauty pageants is because J-Mac mentioned that Black contestants made up a greater percentage of Miss America contestants than the general population (on a Black-to-Whites ratio).

            That statistic was proven to be false. And it should have stopped right there.

            At no point have I, Tim or anyone said that the ratio of Black contestants for the Miss America Pageant be equal to the ratio of Blacks to Whites in the general population.

            And for those still caught up in the "there shouldn't be hyphenated beauty pageants. We're all Americans and there should be one queen, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda . . ." , you either didn't read my earlier post or you clearly did not understand my earlier post.

            It's about economics and opportunity. Or, if you like, the opportunity to make money.

            All of these these national pageants, state pageants, regional pageants and city-wide pageants are franchises owned by entrepreneurs. They have a linear structure where one feeds into the next, which feeds into the next, and so forth. Let's take a typical pageant. The director makes money, the person hired to take pictures for the event makes money. The hairdressers who style the contestants make money. The contestants have to have new shoes and dresses, so the stores selling them make money. The people renting out the venues make money. Programs have to be printed, so a local printer makes money. They have to advertise, so local radio, TV, and newspapers make money. The pageant needs a website, so I make money. I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody, but you get the picture. Now multiply all that money by 7,500, which might begin to cover the number of pageants in America. And some of you want to dismantle this entire cash cow profit stream just to satisfy your misguided notion that "we're one America so we only need one Miss America Pageant"?

            Riiiiiiiiiiight.

            BTW, Miss USA competes directly with Miss America. Who's willing to call Donald Trump (who owns Miss USA) and tell him to shut down his Miss USA contest because we have a competing Miss America Pageant?

            I didn't THINK so.
            Signature

            Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
            http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885917].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

              Mike, just to remind you, the ONLY reason we're even discussing population percentages relative to these beauty pageants is because J-Mac mentioned that Black contestants made up a greater percentage of Miss America contestants than the general population (on a Black-to-Whites ratio).

              That statistic was proven to be false. And it should have stopped right there.

              At no point have I, Tim or anyone said that the ratio of Black contestants for the Miss America Pageant be equal to the ratio of Blacks to Whites in the general population.

              And for those still caught up in the "there shouldn't be hyphenated beauty pageants. We're all Americans and there should be one queen, blah, blah, blah, yadda, yadda, yadda . . ." , you either didn't read my earlier post or you clearly did not understand my earlier post.

              It's about economics and opportunity. Or, if you like, the opportunity to make money.

              All of these these national pageants, state pageants, regional pageants and city-wide pageants are franchises owned by entrepreneurs. They have a linear structure where one feeds into the next, which feeds into the next, and so forth. Let's take a typical pageant. The director makes money, the person hired to take pictures for the event makes money. The hairdressers who style the contestants make money. The contestants have to have new shoes and dresses, so the stores selling them make money. The people renting out the venues make money. Programs have to be printed, so a local printer makes money. They have to advertise, so local radio, TV, and newspapers make money. The pageant needs a website, so I make money. I'm sure I'm forgetting somebody, but you get the picture. Now multiply all that money by 7,500, which might begin to cover the number of pageants in America. And some of you want to dismantle this entire cash cow profit stream just to satisfy your misguided notion that "we're one America so we only need one Miss America Pageant"?

              Riiiiiiiiiiight.

              BTW, Miss USA competes directly with Miss America. Who's willing to call Donald Trump (who owns Miss USA) and tell him to shut down his Miss USA contest because we have a competing Miss America Pageant?

              I didn't THINK so.
              Its not a misguided notion. And people who think it is are part of the problem with the country.

              Its only 'misguided' for those that want to perpetuate divisions in the country.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885966].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
        Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

        Just because they weren't qualified to compete doesnt mean they weren't allowed to compete.
        When you said they "weren't qualified", what exactly did you mean? Because if being qualified meant being of European descent, then you are absolutely right, they were not qualified.

        Your "weren't qualified to compete" dribble reminded me of the Jim Crow laws of the South. For the benefit of our foreign Warriors, Jim Crow laws were passed by southern states (formally slave states) after the Civil War that virtually eliminated Blacks from voting. The most popular ones were:

        Property tests, which made it illegal to vote unless you owned property.

        Poll taxes, which simply put a tax on voting.

        Literacy tests, in which voters would be confronted by an election inspector, who would ask them to show understanding of some piece of writing. It might be a newspaper story or a childrens' textbook, or it might be article three subsection 5A of the state constitution. The potential voter "passed" at the discretion of the election inspector, who might decide on the spot that the person didn't show sufficient understanding. The literacy test was particularly loathsome, in that it made no pretense of fairness.

        And the ever popular Grandfather clause, which waived the requirements named above--that is waived the poll tax, property tests and literacy tests--if the voter's ancestors had voted before the end of slavery. The Grandfather Clause thus effectively allowed whites to vote and excluded African Americans (aka former slaves).

        But in all fairness to the former slave masters and the social structure that enabled them, these former slaves were not DENIED the right to vote. It was just that they didn't QUALIFY.
        Signature

        Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
        http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885630].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
          Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

          When you said they "weren't qualified", what exactly did you mean? Because if being qualified meant being of European descent, then you are absolutely right, they were not qualified.

          Your "weren't qualified to compete" dribble reminded me of the Jim Crow laws of the South. For the benefit of our foreign Warriors, Jim Crow laws were passed by southern states (formally slave states) after the Civil War that virtually eliminated Blacks from voting. The most popular ones were:

          Property tests, which made it illegal to vote unless you owned property.
          yeah, because only black didnt own property :rolleyes:
          Poll taxes, which simply put a tax on voting.
          yeah, becuase only black didnt have money :rolleyes:
          Literacy tests, in which voters would be confronted by an election inspector, who would ask them to show understanding of some piece of writing. It might be a newspaper story or a childrens' textbook, or it might be article three subsection 5A of the state constitution. The potential voter "passed" at the discretion of the election inspector, who might decide on the spot that the person didn't show sufficient understanding. The literacy test was particularly loathsome, in that it made no pretense of fairness.
          Yeah, only blacks couldn't read :rolleyes:

          And the ever popular Grandfather clause, which waived the requirements named above--that is waived the poll tax, property tests and literacy tests--if the voter's ancestors had voted before the end of slavery. The Grandfather Clause thus effectively allowed whites to vote and excluded African Americans (aka former slaves).
          Technically, they weren't african americans. They were africans. So were they really keeping slaves from voting..or non americans?

          But in all fairness to the former slave masters and the social structure that enabled them, these former slaves were not DENIED the right to vote. It was just that they didn't QUALIFY.
          quite the drama queen arent we. Pick a topic and a time period, stop adjusting the argument to fit your side.

          You're right..if you didnt own property, couldnt read, or didnt have any money, you werent allowed to vote. Not that voting has anything to do with the tangent of the conversation that this convo went off on about the pagents..but whatever puts lead in your pencil.

          you are mixing issues and time periods. Your original post said: I challenge you to find me any year -recent or otherwise - where 10 Black women competed for the title of Miss America.

          Just because they were allowed to compete doesnt mean they make the cut. The color of skin doesnt automatically include you in the pagent, you still have to be voted in basically by your peers. If you're ugly, no talent, fat, got boils on your butt..whatever...you're not going to compete in the pagent regardless of your skin color.

          What happened 2, 3, 4 generations ago and their reasonings for it have nothing to do with recent pagents. How long will the drum of 'being held down' be beaten as a reason for what is essentially legalized descrimination against the majority?

          Hey, I'm part Native American...should I cry that the reason im not president is because of bias against Natives? I mean they did that a couple hundred years ago..so it must still be true right? It really couldn't have anything to do with NOT BEING QUALIFIED could it? Nah..that would make too much sense.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885851].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
            Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

            The color of skin doesnt automatically include you in the pagent, you still have to be voted in basically by your peers. If you're ugly, no talent, fat, got boils on your butt..whatever...you're not going to compete in the pagent regardless of your skin color.
            The color of your skin shouldn't automatically disqualify you from the pageant, either. Let's forget the shady history of the Miss America Pageant and concentrate on the present. As a contestant, you are awarded points at the discretion of judges. These judges, for the most part, don't look like you, who have their very own criteria for what they feel is representative of poise, beauty and grace. It's totally subjective. If you show up looking like Serena Williams but the judges are looking for contestants who fit the Maria Sharapova profile, what are your chances? If their definition of beauty doesn't happen to include the qualities you bring to the table, you have one of three choices:

            1) Accept their decisions, go home, cry in your pillow
            2) Accept their decisions, go home, try to change yourself to meet their standards, and try again next year.
            3) Find a pageant whose criteria is more aligned with your natural gifts.

            For many people, Option #3 is great. The rejected contestants have an outlet to showcase themselves, the alternative pageants have contestants who they can showcase, and the pageants who rejected them are OK because they never wanted those type of contestants in the first place.

            So if everyone is cool, what are YOU complaining about?
            Signature

            Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
            http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886054].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

              The color of your skin shouldn't automatically disqualify you from the pageant, either. Let's forget the shady history of the Miss America Pageant and concentrate on the present. As a contestant, you are awarded points at the discretion of judges. These judges, for the most part, don't look like you, who have their very own criteria for what they feel is representative of poise, beauty and grace. It's totally subjective. If you show up looking like Serena Williams but the judges are looking for contestants who fit the Maria Sharapova profile, what are your chances? If their definition of beauty doesn't happen to include the qualities you bring to the table, you have one of three choices:

              1) Accept their decisions, go home, cry in your pillow
              2) Accept their decisions, go home, try to change yourself to meet their standards, and try again next year.
              3) Find a pageant whose criteria is more aligned with your natural gifts.

              For many people, Option #3 is great. The rejected contestants have an outlet to showcase themselves, the alternative pageants have contestants who they can showcase, and the pageants who rejected them are OK because they never wanted those type of contestants in the first place.

              So if everyone is cool, what are YOU complaining about?
              That's a copout. Beauty is beauty. Is it totally impossible for you to believe that maybe they were just not pretty enough in general to make it?

              What am I complaining about? You're bitching that minorities were never included in pagents and thats racist. But you dont seem to have a problem with minority pagents that dont allow whites. How is one any less racist or bigoted than the other?

              Let me answer that for you..its not. One is just as bad as the other.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886097].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                That's a copout. Beauty is beauty. Is it totally impossible for you to believe that maybe they were just not pretty enough in general to make it?

                You are wrong Mike - beauty is subjective. They were deemed not pretty enough according to the standards of the pageant judges. There is no one universally accepted standard of beauty. The more you try to drive home this point, the specious your argument. Look behind you Mike - you're not leading a movement. There is nobody here supporting you on this "beauty is beauty" silliness. Save face. Drop it.


                Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                You're bitching that minorities were never included in pagents and thats racist. But you dont seem to have a problem with minority pagents that dont allow whites. How is one any less racist or bigoted than the other?
                "Miss America represents the highest ideals. She is a real combination of beauty, grace, and intelligence, artistic and refined. She is a type which the American Girl might well emulate." - Miss America: Home

                Started in 1922, the Miss America Pageant was set up to represent just WHITE American women. They made it crystal clear who they wanted to compete - American Experience | Miss America | Primary Sources

                This contract the contestants had to sign states very clearly in Rule #7 - Contestant must be in good health and of the white race.. It took 50 years before the rules were changed and Black contestant made it to Atlantic City as one of the 50 state finalists. And another 14 years after that before a Black woman won.

                But that's ancient history Mike. Let's move on.

                You correctly stated that I don't have a problem with exclusionary minority pageants. Guilty as charged. Because unlike the Miss America Pageant, Miss Black USA, Miss German-American, Miss Jewish Princess, Miss DeKalb County, Miss Empire State, etc. are race- and/or geo-specific. That is how they are set up. So if you are are Black and a Baptist, you might want to sit out the Miss Jewish Princess pageant. If you are live in Dallas, you might want to skip the Miss Empire State pageant. But if you're the Miss America Pageant and you claim to be the last word and the definitive statement of beauty for all of America, then you should either change the name to Miss White Anglo-Saxon American pageant, or make it inclusive to all comers.

                And to their credit, they have done that Mike. Presently, I have no problem
                with the Miss America pageant. All I've said is that the pageant has it's own standards by which they judge contestants, and if potential contestants don't meet or fit the profile of the Miss America pageant's standards, they should have other pageant options available to them.

                Nobody on this thread has a problem with that ---- but you. Like I said, look behind you Mike.
                Signature

                Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886329].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                  Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                  You are wrong Mike - beauty is subjective. They were deemed not pretty enough according to the standards of the pageant judges.
                  DING!
                  You're right. for the pagents they weren pretty enough.

                  Sorry about their luck

                  hey, i didnt pass my driving test today...i didnt meet the state standards..ah hell with it, i'll issue myself my own drivers license..thats a great idea.


                  "Miss America represents the highest ideals. She is a real combination of beauty, grace, and intelligence, artistic and refined. She is a type which the American Girl might well emulate." - Miss America: Home

                  Started in 1922, the Miss America Pageant was set up to represent just WHITE American women. They made it crystal clear who they wanted to compete - American Experience | Miss America | Primary Sources

                  This contract the contestants had to sign states very clearly in Rule #7 - Contestant must be in good health and of the white race.. It took 50 years before the rules were changed and Black contestant made it to Atlantic City as one of the 50 state finalists. And another 14 years after that before a Black woman won.

                  But that's ancient history Mike. Let's move on.
                  and now 50 years later...the need for the racially biased pagents run by minorities is what?

                  Thats right...there is none.

                  You correctly stated that I don't have a problem with exclusionary minority pageants. Guilty as charged. Because unlike the Miss America Pageant, Miss Black USA, Miss German-American, Miss Jewish Princess, Miss DeKalb County, Miss Empire State, etc. are race- and/or geo-specific. That is how they are set up. So if you are are Black and a Baptist, you might want to sit out the Miss Jewish Princess pageant. If you are live in Dallas, you might want to skip the Miss Empire State pageant. But if you're the Miss America Pageant and you claim to be the last word and the definitive statement of beauty for all of America, then you should either change the name to Miss White Anglo-Saxon American pageant, or make it inclusive to all comers.

                  And to their credit, they have done that Mike. Presently, I have no problem
                  with the Miss America pageant. All I've said is that the pageant has it's own standards by which they judge contestants, and if potential contestants don't meet or fit the profile of the Miss America pageant's standards, they should have other pageant options available to them.

                  Nobody on this thread has a problem with that ---- but you. Like I said, look behind you Mike.
                  Behind me is where all that garbage from 50 years ago that you're trying to bring up is. Right where it should stay.

                  If you're a racist, just say you're a racist and be done with it. Even if you're racist towards your own race.
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886395].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                    Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                    If you're a racist, just say you're a racist and be done with it. Even if you're racist towards your own race.
                    Hey Mike, you're pretty darn close to getting yourself in hot water, intimating that I'm a racist. You might want to pump your brakes a little.

                    Instead of poking holes in what I believe, you don't you tell us what YOU believe. Specifically, what do you believe should be done about all these pageants? I'm asking because I sincerely want to know.
                    Signature

                    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886488].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                      Hey Mike, you're pretty darn close to getting yourself in hot water, intimating that I'm a racist. You might want to pump your brakes a little.
                      Or what?


                      racial bias is racial bias..even if you're biased against your own race.
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886725].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
              TL, now that the conversation is more or less back on topic, I'm not going derail it again with a long reply. I'll just say this...

              Congress in some respects runs much like a business. When a Congressman takes office, he or she will very likely bring their own top aids, the same as the CEO of a major company. Once past that level, staffers tend to stay for long careers unless they have ambitions of their own. Not for political reasons, but for practical reasons.

              Replacing an entire office staff for an operation like Congress when the office holder could potentially change every two years doesn't make sense. By the time those staffers learned the ropes well enough to do their jobs, they could be gone again. So many newly elected reps will bring in a few hand-picked people for the inner sanctum and hire the existing staff almost intact.

              As far as using talking points, I'll admit it's kind of the pot calling the kettle black (pardon the expression). In a high profile, high exposure debate like this one, with its high emotional impact on both sides, the words we hear most often tend to become the shorthand of the discussion.

              I've never been an operative for either party. In fact, I haven't been a member of either party for over two decades. Both sides are capable of screwing things up, they just tend to squat in different sand boxes.

              Rob, I have to tweak you a little on this one:

              Property tests, which made it illegal to vote unless you owned property.
              If memory serves, that particular test was written into the constitution and later amended out of it. And I doubt it had anything to do with race. I think it had more to do with the idea of "those that pay the bills make the rules". The same thinking went into the exclusion of women and minorities. Those, too, were later corrected.

              Too bad a few rednecks still smarting over the "War of Northern Aggression" resurrected property tests for their own uses.
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886226].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    BTW with regard to the different standards of beauty, the SAME can be said of WHITES, and different white cultures. STILL, even with blacks, a lot of standards have more to do with location and culture than race. Africa IS pretty big.

    And YEAH, TPs #1 statement was interesting. Does he give reagan credit from having gone even one step farther and demanding that congres make CUTS everytime they asked for an increase in taxes? Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The fact is that perhaps EVERY president in recent memory(since the early 60s at least) has promised or claimed to have done such a thing.

    And 69 is interesting. What about the ATF?

    OH, I could say LOTS more....

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881755].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Really John? According to WikiAnswers.com, Blacks make up about 12.9 % of the American population and whites about 80%."

    Wikianswers also claims that asking what percentage of the American population is white is the same as asking what percentage of the American population is African-American, and that isn't correct.
    By the way, Wikianswers also says the AA pecentage is 12-13%, not 12.9.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1881759].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    No prob J-Mac.

    Before I started working with the Miss Black USA pageant, I previously had a negative view of pageants in general and the ladies who competed in them specifically. While I haven't done a 180, I think more highly of the pageant experience in general. A lot of the skills these girls learn are invaluable. Things like developing poise, being able to communicate and articulate, thinking on one's feet, and being able to compete at the highest levels.

    Trust me on this John - put 50 incredibly beautiful girls in a room, toss 1 prize package of a crown and thousands of dollars, and you'll see how competitive they can get.

    And as far a the bra-and-pantie show, well that's why Al Gore invented the Internet.
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1882200].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author garyv
    No offense, but you're not going to insure 30 million uninsured people without raising the taxes of "at least" 30 million people.

    Dems aren't getting the bigger picture. And what the CBO isn't taking into account are the absolute HUGE numbers of companies that are just going to go under, because they can't afford the new insurance mandate. Individuals at lower income jobs are just going to quit, because once they're forced to pay for this insurance mandate, it will no longer be worth it for them to even work.

    This is just a giant foot in the door for a liberal govt. that wants it's people dependent on them. It's also a giant sledge hammer for the American dream.

    And by the way, the only fix the feds need to do here is to stay out of the way. Everything they touch other than the military ( and even the military has been damaged lately) turns to crap.


    - And by the way, isn't it funny that those nuns all belong to catholic hospitals. And hospitals, as well as insurance companies will all win big if this bill passes.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1884476].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post
    - - Regarding Trojan horses & graft in the bill...

    What are you gana do?

    Even if it allowed for let's say 50 billion ( which I doubt ) to be peeled off every year as far as I'm concerned...

    As long as major concerns are met and it doesn't add to bankrupting the nation - according to the CBO I can live with it.

    You said...

    Yep, it is EASY to "live with it" if YOU aren't paying and you or your friends somehow benefit.


    Mr. S.

    My wife and I will be quite happy to do our part in paying for the bill.


    After you supposedly picked my points apart one by one I can only conclude that you are sick of mind and logic.

    one and one equals three!

    But perhaps something else is going on here...

    All of your responses wreaked of silly cynicism and obstructionism of the most harmful kind in our national discourse.

    You're with the do nothing and let the carnage continue crowd.

    Mr. Seasoned,

    I once asked you if you were a republican operative.


    You never answered that question.


    Sir, I now repeat the question.

    Are you now or have you ever been a republican operative?

    This is a pretty high traffic forum and you may have been assigned here to spew forth the convoluted logic you've been spewing.

    Have I hit the mark or do I sound crazy?

    Because that's exactly how you sound to me and should sound to any rational, pragmatic person who wants better for the people of this nation.

    Your line of thinking regarding major national issues will only lead us to become a military power and nothing more.

    You are a boon to the enemies of our nation.

    They love people like you.

    - You have consistently sided with the worst of the bad guys in this American drama such as Rush, Glenn, & The Birthers.

    Who's paying you?

    Who approached you first, was it Army or Delay? ( borrowed from the Godfather movie )

    Dick Army?

    That other dude ( Tim something ) that excels in generating phony grass roots movements & town hall hooligans?

    Perhaps it was the RNC itself?

    I seriously think it was people like you they were talking about in their now infamous leaked slide show presentation on how to raise funds from their...

    ... reactionary ( their exact words ) non super-rich supporters.

    I can't take you seriously.

    Oh well, I guess we all have our roles to play in this American drama.

    You've chosen yours and I've chosen mine.

    ( or are you being blackmailed into doing this? )

    All The Best!!

    ( cause you need help - bigtime or is it all an act since you might be an operative? )

    TL

    Ps. I repeat, who approached you first?
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885400].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

      Quote:
      Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post
      - - Regarding Trojan horses & graft in the bill...

      What are you gana do?

      Even if it allowed for let's say 50 billion ( which I doubt ) to be peeled off every year as far as I'm concerned...

      As long as major concerns are met and it doesn't add to bankrupting the nation - according to the CBO I can live with it.

      You said...

      Yep, it is EASY to "live with it" if YOU aren't paying and you or your friends somehow benefit.


      Mr. S.

      My wife and I will be quite happy to do our part in paying for the bill.


      After you supposedly picked my points apart one by one I can only conclude that you are sick of mind and logic.

      one and one equals three!

      But perhaps something else is going on here...

      All of your responses wreaked of silly cynicism and obstructionism of the most harmful kind in our national discourse.

      You're with the do nothing and let the carnage continue crowd.

      Mr. Seasoned,

      I once asked you if you were a republican operative.


      You never answered that question.


      Sir, I now repeat the question.

      Are you now or have you ever been a republican operative?

      This is a pretty high traffic forum and you may have been assigned here to spew forth the convoluted logic you've been spewing.

      Have I hit the mark or do I sound crazy?

      Because that's exactly how you sound to me and should sound to any rational, pragmatic person who wants better for the people of this nation.

      Your line of thinking regarding major national issues will only lead us to become a military power and nothing more.

      You are a boon to the enemies of our nation.

      They love people like you.

      - You have consistently sided with the worst of the bad guys in this American drama such as Rush, Glenn, & The Birthers.

      Who's paying you?

      Who approached you first, was it Army or Delay? ( borrowed from the Godfather movie )

      Dick Army?

      That other dude ( Tim something ) that excels in generating phony grass roots movements & town hall hooligans?

      Perhaps it was the RNC itself?

      I seriously think it was people like you they were talking about in their now infamous leaked slide show presentation on how to raise funds from their...

      ... reactionary ( their exact words ) non super-rich supporters.

      I can't take you seriously.

      Oh well, I guess we all have our roles to play in this American drama.

      You've chosen yours and I've chosen mine.

      ( or are you being blackmailed into doing this? )

      All The Best!!

      ( cause you need help - bigtime or is it all an act since you might be an operative? )

      TL

      Ps. I repeat, who approached you first?
      TL. I NEVER saw that question. NOPE, I am NOT any kind of operative. Unlike you and TP, I didn't come here to push a political agenda. So WHY am I interested?

      1. I pay taxes, TOO MANY and most go to garbage forcing them to be raised, so I HATE IT!
      2. I am in the U.S.. I was BORN here. I saw it get worse and worse. Frankly, I don't want to move, and such moves are problematic.
      3. I HAVE insurance, and want to be able to depend on my doctors, hospitals, and coverage no less than I do now.
      4. Frankly, I don't want to see OTHERS hurt EITHER!

      So are YOU a plant?

      OK, I started reading H. R. 4872 which was posted YESTERDAY! It IS incomplete(has placeholders for additions), and DOES include some of the worst language that was in the first bill.

      NOW, in response to every question you asked me here:

      My wife and I will be quite happy to do our part in paying for the bill.
      GREAT! Please tell the government that YOU will pay any new taxes for me and the others. When I start hearing that on the radio, and the democrat party agrees, THEN we can talk!

      After you supposedly picked my points apart one by one I can only conclude that you are sick of mind and logic.

      one and one equals three!
      READ THE BILL!

      All of your responses wreaked of silly cynicism and obstructionism of the most harmful kind in our national discourse.
      When talking to yourself, use your QUIET voice!

      You're with the do nothing and let the carnage continue crowd.
      NOPE! If I have a bucket of alcohol, I will NOT throw it on a burning fire JUST to say I did something!

      Are you now or have you ever been a republican operative?
      NOPE, NEVER!

      This is a pretty high traffic forum and you may have been assigned here to spew forth the convoluted logic you've been spewing.
      I have been here LONG before you, and PAID to be here!

      Have I hit the mark or do I sound crazy?
      YEP, you sound crazy

      Because that's exactly how you sound to me and should sound to any rational, pragmatic person who wants better for the people of this nation.
      READ THE BILL, THEN talk! OH, I GET IT!!!!!!!

      Main Entry: prag·mat·ic
      Pronunciation: prag-ˈma-tik
      Variant(s): also prag·mat·i·cal -ti-kəl
      Function: adjective
      Etymology: Latin pragmaticus skilled in law or business, from Greek pragmatikos, from pragmat-, pragma deed, from prassein to do -- more at practical
      Date: 1616
      1 archaic a (1) : busy (2) : officious b : opinionated
      2 : relating to matters of fact or practical affairs often to the exclusion of intellectual or artistic matters : practical as opposed to idealistic <pragmatic men of power have had no time or inclination to deal with...social morality -- K. B. Clark>
      3 : relating to or being in accordance with philosophical pragmatism

      -- pragmatic noun

      -- prag·mat·i·cal·ly -ti-k(ə-)lē adverb
      SEE, I always thought pragmatic meant #2, and YOU go by #1! Sorry, I won't change my meaning of the word to suit yours.

      Your line of thinking regarding major national issues will only lead us to become a military power and nothing more.

      You are a boon to the enemies of our nation.

      They love people like you.
      So why did you include that self talk? Use your QUIET voice for that.

      - You have consistently sided with the worst of the bad guys in this American drama such as Rush, Glenn, & The Birthers.
      NOPE, I haven't.

      Who's paying you?
      I'm not being paid for this. WHO is paying YOU?

      Who approached you first, was it Army or Delay? ( borrowed from the Godfather movie )

      Dick Army?

      That other dude ( Tim something ) that excels in generating phony grass roots movements & town hall hooligans?

      Perhaps it was the RNC itself?

      I seriously think it was people like you they were talking about in their now infamous leaked slide show presentation on how to raise funds from their...

      ... reactionary ( their exact words ) non super-rich supporters.

      I can't take you seriously.

      Oh well, I guess we all have our roles to play in this American drama.

      You've chosen yours and I've chosen mine.

      ( or are you being blackmailed into doing this? )

      All The Best!!

      ( cause you need help - bigtime or is it all an act since you might be an operative? )

      TL

      Ps. I repeat, who approached you first?
      WOW, you really ARE crazy! NOPE, I know none of them, and they don't know me!

      I have to wonder though. Those so quick to accuse others of being paid are often paid themselves.

      I only hope Paul realizes I didn't start this and could say more. I am awaiting ****YOUR**** HONEST response. I hope YOU will read the bill. But don't accuse ME of being a plant or getting paid.

      BTW you DO realize that any SUPPOSED coverage doesn't start, and the worst parts won't START to become apparent, until 2013, right? And the WORST parts, may not be apparent until 2023! That is in the bill as it stands as of last night, and was in the first bill MONTHS ago.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885679].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885914].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author KimW
      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Thanks Michael.
      While I did not read the whole thing due to time constraints, it does on the surface seem to reflect my beliefs that anyone that feels the need to use hyphenation is about divisiveness and not coming together.
      Signature

      Read A Post.
      Subscribe to a Newsletter
      KimWinfrey.Com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885929].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
        Originally Posted by KimW View Post

        Thanks Michael.
        While I did not read the whole thing due to time constraints, it does on the surface seem to reflect my beliefs that anyone that feels the need to use hyphenation is about divisiveness and not coming together.
        I agree. I think thats probably one of the biggest problems in the country today.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1885950].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    TL:
    "How do we talk about the joys of St. Patrick's day without mentioning you know who.

    How do we talk about the fun of Beerfest without talking about __________???

    I remember our discussion on Columbus day at this forum, and I used the term Italian American and somebody ( was it you again? ) invoked the same argument you're using now."

    You talk about St Patricks day by mentioning the Irish, not the Irish-American.Its an Irish heritage event.

    You talk about beerfest by mentioning the Germans, not the German-Americans, its a german heritage event. ( I'm assuming, I've never heard of beerfest,but I'm guessing it is either another name for Octoberfest or a similar event).

    As far as mentioning Italian-Americans, it was probably me that said something, as anytime I see a term like that it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

    If you are an American you are an American. I don't care what color you are. And I don't care where you came from.
    Remember that term, America is a melting pot? If I melt a yellow crayon and a blue crayon, I get green, not yellow hyphen blue.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886149].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      TL:
      "How do we talk about the joys of St. Patrick's day without mentioning you know who.

      How do we talk about the fun of Beerfest without talking about __________???

      I remember our discussion on Columbus day at this forum, and I used the term Italian American and somebody ( was it you again? ) invoked the same argument you're using now."

      You talk about St Patricks day by mentioning the Irish, not the Irish-American.Its an Irish heritage event.

      You talk about beerfest by mentioning the Germans, not the German-Americans, its a german heritage event. ( I'm assuming, I've never heard of beerfest,but I'm guessing it is either another name for Octoberfest or a similar event).

      As far as mentioning Italian-Americans, it was probably me that said something, as anytime I see a term like that it raises the hair on the back of my neck.

      If you are an American you are an American. I don't care what color you are. And I don't care where you came from.
      Remember that term, America is a melting pot? If I melt a yellow crayon and a blue crayon, I get green, not yellow hyphen blue.
      Well, back then, MANY people tried to assimilate, like was mentioned in that 60s film. They DID become green! TODAY, people seem to want to turn the yellow or blue side away from everything. In fact, they may mention the melting pot ONLY to indicate that others should become more like they are, as opposed to the other way around.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886321].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author kyhell
    Ok let's pretend for just a sec. let's say there is a 'White History Month" (LOL I know right) and these teachers handed out pics of Hitler, Jim Jones and Lee Harvey Oswald.

    Now when the teachers were to get suspended for their actions there would be no question as to why as color does not come in to question rather the reasoned response of the actions of the men pictured.

    Sad really that this has to be a color issue. Even sadder that these teachers lack a moral compass
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886317].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "I don't even like the health bill all that much. To me it's pretty weak without a public option or a medicare buyin. I prefer Medicare for all. Single payer. This health care bill is almost as unpopular to progressives as it is to the so called conservatives. Without a public option it's a huge windfall to the insurance companies and they have been proven not to have our best interests at heart."

    Sadly a lot of people have a misconception about what medicare does for people too.
    I'm on medicare,and the government takes that money out of my disability check every month before I get it.
    So, My disability, which after almost 40 years in the workforce is already almost nothing, gets reduced back to the government by $100 every month.
    On top of that, Medicare is always the secondary insurance,so if I have any other insureance it is used to the max before medicare does anything.
    On top of that, you have to have medicare for 30 months before they start paying for anything. By then the government has kept 3 grand of my disabilty and not paid a penny of my medical expenses.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886586].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Could I also be referred to as an American of African decent? "

    Not only could you, but its my opinion that you should, and by doing so, classifying yourself as an American without any other factors, which helps bring people together, not put a wedge between them.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886602].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    YA KNOW! TL didn't answer MY question. IS HE a plant? For all I know, he and TP came here JUST for that. As I implied, I am kind of laying low here, on the "HCP", because I don't want to be accused of putting alcohol onto that fire, but I am curious, ESPECIALLY since he accused ME of that.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886621].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      YA KNOW! TL didn't answer MY question. IS HE a plant? For all I know, he and TP came here JUST for that. As I implied, I am kind of laying low here, on the "HCP", because I don't want to be accused of putting alcohol onto that fire, but I am curious, ESPECIALLY since he accused ME of that.

      Steve
      I'll be happy to answer you now.

      And I'll be brief.

      I asked you first.

      My answer is no and I was only half kidding with you simply to drive home my point about
      your brilliant logic and debating tactics.

      You play crazy, I play crazy.

      You have your role and I have mine in this American drama.

      Must go and check on ravioli on the stove, that was brought over to us American by __________________.

      All The Best!!

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886679].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "Must go and check on ravioli on the stove, that was brought over to us American by __________________."

    To me this proves the point. It was brought over to us by Italians.
    And then passed on generation through generation by Americans of Italian descent.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886693].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
    J-Mac,

    As opposed to melting pot I would say a patchwork quilt. We can retain the integrity of our individual cultures, while making what we bring to the table uniquely American.

    Sandblasting away any vestiges of our individual ancestral cultures is simply insane. When that happens, you have Hispanic American who can't speak Spanish because their parents were so anxious about NOT appearing Anti-American that they refused to allow their kids to speak Spanish in the house. Same for Italians who wouldn't teach their children Italian, etc.

    We should celebrate the diverse cultures we have here - not have a crowd show up, a la Frankenstein, with pitch forks and torches demanding that the ethnic family either ditch their ethnicity or get the HELL OUTTA 'MERICA!
    Signature

    Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
    http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886889].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

      J-Mac,

      As opposed to melting pot I would say a patchwork quilt. We can retain the integrity of our individual cultures, while making what we bring to the table uniquely American.

      Sandblasting away any vestiges of our individual ancestral cultures is simply insane. When that happens, you have Hispanic American who can't speak Spanish because their parents were so anxious about NOT appearing Anti-American that they refused to allow their kids to speak Spanish in the house. Same for Italians who wouldn't teach their children Italian, etc.

      We should celebrate the diverse cultures we have here - not have a crowd show up, a la Frankenstein, with pitch forks and torches demanding that the ethnic family either ditch their ethnicity or get the HELL OUTTA 'MERICA!
      Even patches in a QUILT have to bond on each side or fall apart!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887393].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        Even patches in a QUILT have to bond on each side or fall apart!
        Not surprisingly, you read my post and totally failed to comprehend what I was saying. Hopefully you'll read this post and figure it out.

        I was contrasting J-Mac's "America is a melting pot" analogy with my "America is a patchwork quilt" analogy. The difference between the two is that, with a melting pot, a number of different cultures are put in a "pot" and "melted down" so that instead of having several distinct cultural influences, you have a melted down glop of indistinguishable influences that is supposed to make this one America.

        The "patchwork quilt" theory holds that we can retain our different cultural identities (ie: the "patches"), share and expose those with other cultural identities, and create a uniquely American cultural identity.

        In other works Steve, it's a celebration of our cultural differences, not a subjugation of those differences. And of COURSE the sides of the quilt would have bond on each side or fall apart. I didn't think I'd have to point out the nakedly obvious . . . but I momentarily forgot you were lurking around in this thread, so "MY BAD!"

        If this explanation still has you confused, please PM me and I'll see if I can't break it down even more.
        Signature

        Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
        http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1889386].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
    You know this is ridiculous.

    Race no longer plays an issue at least it shouldn't your speaking of people not races people. People who happen to exist in the same manner you do eyes ears mouths noses bodies etc.. they eat sleep drive walk run play etc...
    what is with you guys?

    White people black people red people blue people who the heck cares look on a man or woman as a color person I look on them as a person. absolutely ridiculous these mindsets I am seeing.

    If a man or woman lives in America and has been accepted by the government they are a citizen of America. not an african chinese etc they are americans the same as when they come here to canada they are now canadians.

    Bringing up political bills, historical references which by the way is NOTHING to be proud of at all period.

    There was a huge reason the south lost ya know Now you folks are entitled to your opinions sometimes it is better to keep those opinions rather then share them I tell you the truth doing anything based on race makes 0 sense who cares if I punched you in the nose and I punched a person of different nationality in the nose the color would be the same. So that is MY opinion.
    -WD
    Signature

    "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886893].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    If one doesn't want to be part of the American culture, why come here in the first place?
    Tim, I too like visiting different cultural areas when I travel, but I do expect people that come here to live the rest of their lives to be here legally, to obey American laws and learn to speak the albeit unofficial language, english.

    Sometimes I think its only people who are actually Heinz 57s type of people that get it.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886935].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      One of the reasons they come here is to have the freedom to do what they want. Yes, they should follow the laws and learning English will help them and their family do better, but besides that there isn't any real definition of an American "culture". What is it? Baseball, apple pie and Chevrolet? I don't think so.

      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      If one doesn't want to be part of the American culture, why come here in the first place?
      Tim, I too like visiting different cultural areas when I travel, but I do expect people that come here to live the rest of their lives to be here legally, to obey American laws and learn to speak the albeit unofficial language, english.

      Sometimes I think its only people who are actually Heinz 57s type of people that get it.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1886988].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

        J-Mac,

        As opposed to melting pot I would say a patchwork quilt. We can retain the integrity of our individual cultures, while making what we bring to the table uniquely American.

        Sandblasting away any vestiges of our individual ancestral cultures is simply insane. When that happens, you have Hispanic American who can't speak Spanish because their parents were so anxious about NOT appearing Anti-American that they refused to allow their kids to speak Spanish in the house. Same for Italians who wouldn't teach their children Italian, etc.

        We should celebrate the diverse cultures we have here - not have a crowd show up, a la Frankenstein, with pitch forks and torches demanding that the ethnic family either ditch their ethnicity or get the HELL OUTTA 'MERICA!
        Patchwork quilt? Yeah, I can see that...

        I'm all for celebrating diverse cultures, as long as the celebrations are not exclusionary. In other words, celebrate Irish heritage (or whatever) as a part of the quilt, not a piece that should have its own quilt.

        Originally Posted by WD Mino View Post

        There was a huge reason the south lost ya know Now you folks are entitled to your opinions sometimes it is better to keep those opinions rather then share them I tell you the truth doing anything based on race makes 0 sense who cares if I punched you in the nose and I punched a person of different nationality in the nose the color would be the same. So that is MY opinion.
        -WD
        Yeah, the south lost because the Yankees finally figured out how to effectively blockade the coast and cut off the supply lines. Until then, Johnny Reb was a serious threat to win the war. Look how close Lee got to DC.

        As long as this conversation is ranging far and wide, you raise another good point.

        If I punch someone in the mouth because they are black, how is that worse than punching him in the mouth because I felt like it? I still have skinned knuckles, he still has a split lip, and it's still simple assault.

        If someone gets murdered because they happen to be black or gay or something, it's called a hate crime and some jurisdictions mandate more severe sentences than if the person is murdered because he won't give up his wallet or he slept with someone's wife. The person is still dead. Calling the murder a "hate crime" doesn't make them less dead, or the killer more of a killer.

        I'm not taking sides, I'm just looking for some further understanding of something that makes no sense to me.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887049].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Patchwork quilt? Yeah, I can see that...

          I'm all for celebrating diverse cultures, as long as the celebrations are not exclusionary. In other words, celebrate Irish heritage (or whatever) as a part of the quilt, not a piece that should have its own quilt.



          Yeah, the south lost because the Yankees finally figured out how to effectively blockade the coast and cut off the supply lines. Until then, Johnny Reb was a serious threat to win the war. Look how close Lee got to DC.

          As long as this conversation is ranging far and wide, you raise another good point.

          If I punch someone in the mouth because they are black, how is that worse than punching him in the mouth because I felt like it? I still have skinned knuckles, he still has a split lip, and it's still simple assault.

          If someone gets murdered because they happen to be black or gay or something, it's called a hate crime and some jurisdictions mandate more severe sentences than if the person is murdered because he won't give up his wallet or he slept with someone's wife. The person is still dead. Calling the murder a "hate crime" doesn't make them less dead, or the killer more of a killer.

          I'm not taking sides, I'm just looking for some further understanding of something that makes no sense to me.
          You said...

          If someone gets murdered because they happen to be black or gay or something, it's called a hate crime and some jurisdictions mandate more severe sentences than if the person is murdered because he won't give up his wallet or he slept with someone's wife.

          The person is still dead. Calling the murder a "hate crime" doesn't make them less dead, or the killer more of a killer.

          I say...

          It's called a hate crime because they were killed because they were whatever they were.

          That is the distinction.

          It applies to everyone.

          In a society as varied as this one and with our history you've got to try to discourage that sort of nastiness - thus the hate crime laws.

          In a society where everyone is the same group like I guess South Korea those types of laws are not needed.

          Does that help?

          TL
          Signature

          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887163].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            You said...

            If someone gets murdered because they happen to be black or gay or something, it's called a hate crime and some jurisdictions mandate more severe sentences than if the person is murdered because he won't give up his wallet or he slept with someone's wife.

            The person is still dead. Calling the murder a "hate crime" doesn't make them less dead, or the killer more of a killer.

            I say...

            It's called a hate crime because they were killed because they were whatever they were.

            That is the distinction.

            It applies to everyone.

            In a society as varied as this one and with our history you've got to try to discourage that sort of nastiness - thus the hate crime laws.

            In a society where everyone is the same group like I guess South Korea those types of laws are not needed.

            Does that help?

            TL
            We're getting there. Then, by that definition, the white driver pulled out of his truck and beaten during the Rodney King riots was also the victim of a hate crime?

            Or does it only apply to crimes against minority or ethnic groups?

            Serious question.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887200].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

              We're getting there. Then, by that definition, the white driver pulled out of his truck and beaten during the Rodney King riots was also the victim of a hate crime?

              Or does it only apply to crimes against minority or ethnic groups?

              Serious question.
              Correct as far as I'm concerned.

              Cause there was only one reason it happened to him.

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887219].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                Correct as far as I'm concerned.

                Cause there was only one reason it happened to him.

                TL
                Good enough. With the caveat that it works both ways, I can accept that reasoning.

                Now if someone could only convince the media that the label applies both ways...:rolleyes:
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887281].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author seasoned
            Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

            You said...

            If someone gets murdered because they happen to be black or gay or something, it's called a hate crime and some jurisdictions mandate more severe sentences than if the person is murdered because he won't give up his wallet or he slept with someone's wife.

            The person is still dead. Calling the murder a "hate crime" doesn't make them less dead, or the killer more of a killer.

            I say...

            It's called a hate crime because they were killed because they were whatever they were.

            That is the distinction.

            It applies to everyone.

            In a society as varied as this one and with our history you've got to try to discourage that sort of nastiness - thus the hate crime laws.

            In a society where everyone is the same group like I guess South Korea those types of laws are not needed.

            Does that help?

            TL
            OK, so if I am killed, it should be considered a HATE CRIME because I happen to be white and was thus killed because I was white! So EVEN under YOUR logic, your argument falls apart. How's this? ENFORCE THE OLD PENALTIES FOR MURDER! Whether you kill someone for one penny, or because they were homosexuual, transgendered, and black, it should be the SAME HARSH PUNISHMENT!

            Steve
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887410].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author WD Mino
          Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

          Patchwork quilt? Yeah, I can see that...

          I'm all for celebrating diverse cultures, as long as the celebrations are not exclusionary. In other words, celebrate Irish heritage (or whatever) as a part of the quilt, not a piece that should have its own quilt.



          Yeah, the south lost because the Yankees finally figured out how to effectively blockade the coast and cut off the supply lines. Until then, Johnny Reb was a serious threat to win the war. Look how close Lee got to DC.

          As long as this conversation is ranging far and wide, you raise another good point.

          If I punch someone in the mouth because they are black, how is that worse than punching him in the mouth because I felt like it? I still have skinned knuckles, he still has a split lip, and it's still simple assault.

          If someone gets murdered because they happen to be black or gay or something, it's called a hate crime and some jurisdictions mandate more severe sentences than if the person is murdered because he won't give up his wallet or he slept with someone's wife. The person is still dead. Calling the murder a "hate crime" doesn't make them less dead, or the killer more of a killer.

          I'm not taking sides, I'm just looking for some further understanding of something that makes no sense to me.
          The point though John is not whether it is right or wrong to hit someone the point is the color of the blood is the same. therefore basing anything on a race/ethnic group is crap.

          White black red blue who gives a care it all references people people not matter what ethnicity are one race -the Human race as for the south well slavery is bad so however they lost glad they did
          -WD
          Signature

          "As a man thinks in his heart so is he-Proverbs 23:7"

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887650].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
            WD, I believe slavery was dying anyway. As an economic model, the practice is so inefficient that as soon as practical replacements became available the institution disappeared.

            Look at the industrialized north. Until the advent of the steam engine and mechanized manufacturing, they used slaves as well. In some cases, they called them indentured servants, but the effect was the same. Once the manufacturers made more money building factories, they did, and ran them with cheap immigrant labor.

            Losing the Civil War simply hastened the demise of a morally wrong, economically infeasible system.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887729].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

              WD, I believe slavery was dying anyway. As an economic model, the practice is so inefficient that as soon as practical replacements became available the institution disappeared.
              I respectfully disagree with you J-Mac. At the time, there was no economic model more efficient than having free labor and being able to breed your own army of slave workers. And to hasten the breeding process, many slave owners personally helped out.

              Sometime after the turn of the century social, moral, and mechanized forces would have slowly grinded slavery to a halt. But in the middle of the 1800's when pretty much everything on a farm / plantation was labor intensive? No way.
              Signature

              Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
              http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1890465].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
                Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                I respectfully disagree with you J-Mac. At the time, there was no economic model more efficient than having free labor and being able to breed your own army of slave workers. And to hasten the breeding process, many slave owners personally helped out.

                Sometime after the turn of the century social, moral, and mechanized forces would have slowly grinded slavery to a halt. But in the middle of the 1800's when pretty much everything on a farm / plantation was labor intensive? No way.
                I'm not sure where the disagreement is.

                The south's agrarian economy was the last bastion of slavery in the USA. That free labor had to be purchased, fed, housed, cared for when sick or injured (even if those who doctored slaves were considered vets). "Home-grown" slaves had to be cared for until they reached an age where they could produce useful work, and at least some of the women were routed away from productive (cash-producing) labor to care for the youngest.

                The overhead meant that the plantations had to be huge -- much like the ranches and grain farms today that are measured in sections* rather than acres.

                With the never-ending need for more cash to keep up the plantation and the 'landed gentry' lifestyle, crops like cotton and tobacco were often planted right up to the edges of the main yard and planted continuously until the land started to peter out.

                In the mid 1800s, slave labor was indeed the only way to sustain that model. All it would have taken to kill it was the invention of the tractor and the picking machine.

                * 1 section = 640 acres = 1 square mile
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1890883].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

              WD, I believe slavery was dying anyway. As an economic model, the practice is so inefficient that as soon as practical replacements became available the institution disappeared.

              Look at the industrialized north. Until the advent of the steam engine and mechanized manufacturing, they used slaves as well. In some cases, they called them indentured servants, but the effect was the same. Once the manufacturers made more money building factories, they did, and ran them with cheap immigrant labor.

              Losing the Civil War simply hastened the demise of a morally wrong, economically infeasible system.
              slavery is still alive and well today all over the world. Look at mumbai. Workers coming from other countries, living in storage containers, making chump change to build outrageously expensive places for the super rich. People in asian crapholes, children, old people working for a wage that by the standards of the country they technically work for doesnt even rank high enough to be called poverty.

              It is they way empires are built..on the backs of cheap labor. But giving someone basically pocket change that is just able to be called 'liveable' isn't really all that different from not paying them at all
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1895955].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
              Originally Posted by JohnMcCabe View Post

              WD, I believe slavery was dying anyway. As an economic model, the practice is so inefficient that as soon as practical replacements became available the institution disappeared.

              Look at the industrialized north. Until the advent of the steam engine and mechanized manufacturing, they used slaves as well. In some cases, they called them indentured servants, but the effect was the same. Once the manufacturers made more money building factories, they did, and ran them with cheap immigrant labor.

              Losing the Civil War simply hastened the demise of a morally wrong, economically infeasible system.
              For some reason ( probably economics ) slaves were being freed all over the world circa 1860.

              But the south wanted to hold on to their traditions etc. and somehow ( why did they start the war? ) their actions ended up finishing slavery a lot earlier than it would have ended otherwise.

              FYI:

              The Brits wanted to come into the war on the side of the south ( typical ) but once the Russians made it clear they would come in on the side of the north, they backed off.

              Another tidbit...

              France took over Mexico during the Civil War and as soon as it was over they ran out of there like a scared rabbit.

              another tidbit...

              Without that war happening when it happened I doubt many people (including yours truly) would have been born - due to migration patterns that resulted from the changes the war brought.

              TL
              Signature

              "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1896880].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Thomas
                Originally Posted by mary_k View Post

                ...I thought there would be a bit of intellect and wisdom in this one...
                So, to introduce a bit of "intellect and wisdom", you trot out the following diatribe?:

                Originally Posted by mary_k View Post

                America is God's disposable asset. Once, the job is done and we go off aborting babies and promoting pornography, and putting trust in our "Almighty Dollar", he's not going to continue to protect us from our hungry enemies. This whole thing, and I mean the whole thing, is leading towards one nation only. It ain't America, Great Britain, Japan, China, India, or the EU. It's Israel. And if you don't believe it just wait another 10 years or less and you'll see. Luke 21:24 says "Until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled."
                :rolleyes::rolleyes:

                Originally Posted by mary_k View Post

                Inside factors like the lie of the federal reserve, racism, national and consumer debt, food shortages, political corruption, the environment, education, land and space, etc. are slowly dissipating our beloved "American dream".
                If you are representative of the average American, maybe you should add "extraordinary paranoia" to your list, as suggested by these comments...

                Originally Posted by mary_k View Post

                Plus there are other countries on the other side of this world that are hell-bent on completely killing that dream (and this includes the countries which we think are allies).

                ...with the growing power and intelligence of other nations like China and Japan, America will inevitably be taken advantage of and rendered powerless...

                ...protect us from our hungry enemies.
                :rolleyes:

                (Fortunately, I already know you AREN'T representative of the average American, most of whom DON'T subscribe to the notion that the rest of the world is full of demonic sub-humans hell bent of dreaming up ways to kill them all.)
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1896966].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                For some reason ( probably economics ) slaves were being freed all over the world circa 1860.

                But the south wanted to hold on to their traditions etc. and somehow ( why did they start the war? ) their actions ended up finishing slavery a lot earlier than it would have ended otherwise.

                The civil war ended 1865!!! India had official slavery until 1843, and I bet some say practically for a hundred years after that. And Blacks are STILL getting killed by blacks in the US and africa.

                Steve
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1897080].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Thomas
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                The Brits wanted to come into the war on the side of the south ( typical ) but once the Russians made it clear they would come in on the side of the north, they backed off.
                No, it was the other-way 'round. The Confederates wanted Britain (and France, as it happens) to join them. They even tried to coerce them into it by attempting to create an economic depression in Europe by voluntarily embargoing cotton supplies. It backfired though, as both the British and French simply looked to Egyptian and Indian cotton supplies to compensate (while resenting the attempt at economic sabotage).

                Also, regardless of which side won the war, the United States was going to be a significantly weakened power, so, either way, the British would benefit (not to mention that fact that they (the Brits) also sold weapons to both sides anyway and, so, were even less likely to throw their hat in with either one).

                Also, despite officially respecting the Union blockade of the Confederacy (as a result of it's own expectation that neutral powers should respect Royal Navy blockades) the British, nevertheless, financed blockade runners that delivered supplies to the South. As well as that, the Emancipation Proclamation made any intervention by any European power on behalf of the South politically unthinkable as, by that time, slavery was an almost universally reviled concept among most European populations.

                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                France took over Mexico during the Civil War and as soon as it was over they ran out of there like a scared rabbit.
                IIRC, the "French" invasion of Mexico was actually a French-British-Spanish invasion, supported and aided by Mexican Conservatives, that came about as a result of the suspension of interest payments on loans made to Mexico by those 3 countries (among others).
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1897112].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

                  No, it was the other-way 'round. The Confederates wanted Britain (and France, as it happens) to join them. They even tried to coerce them into it by attempting to create an economic depression in Europe by voluntarily embargoing cotton supplies. It backfired though, as both the British and French simply looked to Egyptian and Indian cotton supplies to compensate (while resenting the attempt at economic sabotage).

                  Also, regardless of which side won the war, the United States was going to be a significantly weakened power, so, either way, the British would benefit (not to mention that fact that they (the Brits) also sold weapons to both sides anyway and, so, were even less likely to throw their hat in with either one).

                  Also, despite officially respecting the Union blockade of the Confederacy (as a result of it's own expectation that neutral powers should respect Royal Navy blockades) the British, nevertheless, financed blockade runners that delivered supplies to the South. As well as that, the Emancipation Proclamation made any intervention by any European power on behalf of the South politically unthinable as, by that time, slavery was an almost universally reviled concept among most European populations.



                  IIRC, the "French" invasion of Mexico was actually a French-British-Spanish invasion, and was the result of the Mexican suspension of interest payments on loans made to it from those 3 countries, and was supported and aided by Mexican Conservatives.
                  On the Brits...

                  You do know that the Brits have a saying to each other of... "How goes the great game"?

                  ( meaning, how are we doing in our quest to dominate the world )

                  Are you saying...

                  High level Brits didn't secretly want the breakup of the United States???

                  The only nation greater in military power than Britain?

                  The only nation that got in their way when they wanted to do the same thing to Japan as they had done to China?

                  No one would loan us any money - no one.

                  So Lincoln had to raise the money selling bonds to US citizens.

                  - On the US being weakened by the war...

                  The north remained basically untouched...

                  and...

                  Less than 20 years after the end of the war, the US was the unquestioned #1 power on the planet.


                  On Mexico...

                  If the US had not been involved in a civil war, would the invasion had ever happened?

                  I think not.


                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1897231].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Thomas
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    You do know that the Brits have a saying to each other of... "How goes the great game"? ( meaning, how are we doing in our quest to dominate the world )
                    No they don't.

                    The "Great Game" was a term describing past strategic competition between Russia and the British Empire for control and influence over Central Asia.

                    It's only modern use refers to a similar bid for dominance by the US/NATO over the same area in opposition to the SCO.

                    The (modern usage of the) term is common in Central Asian media, but not in British or European media, and is not used by the British themselves.

                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    The only nation greater in military power than Britain?

                    ...Less than 20 years after the end of the the US was the unquestioned #1 power on the planet.
                    At the time of the American Civil War, and for decades afterwards, the British were the superior military power. The British Empire didn't reach it's peak until the early 20th century, declined significantly after 1920, and then all but collapsed after World War 2.

                    It was then (after WW2; 80 years after the Civil War - not 20) that the US emerged as the dominant power.

                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    Are you saying...

                    High level Brits didn't secretly want the breakup of the United States???
                    I'm pretty sure I said the opposite.

                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    No one would loan us any money - no one.
                    You're lamenting the fact that it was hard to get loans to fund a civil war? :confused:

                    Who should have provided the loans?

                    The Brits, perhaps?

                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    On Mexico...

                    If the US had not been involved in a civil war, would the invasion had ever happened?
                    It's a pretty big leap to say that, because it coincided with the Civil War, it wouldn't have happened otherwise. But it did, so who can possibly know anyway?
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1897904].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by Thomas View Post

                      No they don't.

                      The "Great Game" was a term describing past strategic competition between Russia and the British Empire for control and influence over Central Asia.

                      It's only modern use refers to a similar bid for dominance by the US/NATO over the same area in opposition to the SCO.

                      The (modern usage of the) term is common in Central Asian media, but not in British or European media, and is not used by the British themselves.



                      At the time of the American Civil War, and for decades afterwards, the British were the superior military power. The British Empire didn't reach it's peak until the early 20th century, declined significantly after 1920, and then all but collapsed after World War 2.

                      It was then (after WW2; 80 years after the Civil War - not 20) that the US emerged as the dominant power.



                      I'm pretty sure I said the opposite.



                      You're lamenting the fact that it was hard to get loans to fund a civil war? :confused:

                      Who should have provided the loans?

                      The Brits, perhaps?



                      It's a pretty big leap to say that, because it coincided with the Civil War, it wouldn't have happened otherwise.


                      Bud, we're going to go round and round on most of the points.

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1897919].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Thomas
                        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                        Bud, we're going to go round and round on most of the points.
                        Hard to do when I'm right, and you're wrong.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1897975].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                For some reason ( probably economics ) slaves were being freed all over the world circa 1860.

                But the south wanted to hold on to their traditions etc. and somehow ( why did they start the war? ) their actions ended up finishing slavery a lot earlier than it would have ended otherwise.


                TL
                Slavery was not THE reason for the civil war, though most people think it was. It was about states rights, slavery was one of those 'rights'. Good or bad wasn't the point, the point was it was up to the states and the people that lived in those states to decided for themselves what they would and would not do.

                When Lincoln was elected the south started seceding and took union forts that were within southern boundaries, he had no intention of stopping slavery. Confederate soldiers led by Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter in NC and it fell. The south tried to pay for the federal installations, Lincoln dismissed them because he didnt recognize the confederacy as a legitimate government and making any kind of deal with them would lend legitimacy to their claim of being a sovereign government..and sent troops to take the forts back by force.

                If he would have allowed for them to be purchased, the war would have not started, but the u.s. would likely be split in half or thirds.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1898301].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                  Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                  Slavery was not THE reason for the civil war, though most people think it was. It was about states rights, slavery was one of those 'rights'. Good or bad wasn't the point, the point was it was up to the states and the people that lived in those states to decided for themselves what they would and would not do.

                  When Lincoln was elected the south started seceding and took union forts that were within southern boundaries, he had no intention of stopping slavery. Confederate soldiers led by Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter in NC and it fell. The south tried to pay for the federal installations, Lincoln dismissed them because he didnt recognize the confederacy as a legitimate government and making any kind of deal with them would lend legitimacy to their claim of being a sovereign government..and sent troops to take the forts back by force.

                  If he would have allowed for them to be purchased, the war would have not started, but the u.s. would likely be split in half or thirds.
                  So if California said that they would no longer buy or sell chocolate then the federal government would go to war with them? I mean if slavery was a NON issue than it would be no different from that chocolate. WHY go to war? What did the states do to cause such hatred?

                  Steve
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1898339].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                    Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                    So if California said that they would no longer buy or sell chocolate then the federal government would go to war with them? I mean if slavery was a NON issue than it would be no different from that chocolate. WHY go to war? What did the states do to cause such hatred?

                    Steve
                    It would be more like, what if the country as a whole told california they could no longer grow citrus, make wine, make movies..etc.

                    Its not that slavery was a non issue..it was the north TELLING the south (remember at that time, we're still a new country...people trying to get away from a tyrannical government) that they WILL give up their labor force (that incidentally was supplying the north with what they needed) and basically live on a rung of the ladder than their countrymen to the north.

                    Whats the point of having acres of productive farmland that can easily support your family if you aren't allowed to work it any way you see fit? Especially when that way is helping the nation as a whole grow stronger.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1898373].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                      It would be more like, what if the country as a whole told california they could no longer grow citrus, make wine, make movies..etc.

                      Its not that slavery was a non issue..it was the north TELLING the south (remember at that time, we're still a new country...people trying to get away from a tyrannical government) that they WILL give up their labor force (that incidentally was supplying the north with what they needed) and basically live on a rung of the ladder than their countrymen to the north.

                      Whats the point of having acres of productive farmland that can easily support your family if you aren't allowed to work it any way you see fit? Especially when that way is helping the nation as a whole grow stronger.
                      That was the ONE thing you could NOT say because you are then saying that it WAS about slavery.

                      Steve
                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1898450].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                        That was the ONE thing you could NOT say because you are then saying that it WAS about slavery.

                        Steve
                        But it wasnt about slavery for slavery's sake. It was about the right to choose how to handle their own business, and in this case, slavery was one of the things that was their business.

                        The north didnt have a problem with it when they had slaves. Technically slavery in this country started in Virginia as 'indentured servants'. It wasn't until the south became an agricultural powerhouse fueled by slavery and held major sway with the government that the north had issue with it.

                        Truthfully, this country became the giant that it was/is due to slavery, and still does so today.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1898564].message }}
                        • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                          Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                          But it wasnt about slavery for slavery's sake. It was about the right to choose how to handle their own business, and in this case, slavery was one of the things that was their business.

                          The north didnt have a problem with it when they had slaves. Technically slavery in this country started in Virginia as 'indentured servants'. It wasn't until the south became an agricultural powerhouse fueled by slavery and held major sway with the government that the north had issue with it.

                          Truthfully, this country became the giant that it was/is due to slavery, and still does so today.

                          The north didn't care less about a so-called economic rivalry with the south.

                          It was the south that generated the heat and forced the war.

                          The average person in the north lived a lot better than the average person in the south.

                          The north had 21 million people and the south only 9 million of which 4 million were slaves.

                          The north had the manpower and industrial edge big time.

                          The south had a 13th century feudal society and many non-rich southerners initially called the civil war a rich man's war until they got talked into fighting it.

                          ( our way of life is being threatened etc. )

                          Rumor has it that most of the big slave plantations owners were up to their ears in debt to folks in Britain.

                          BTW, the folks in New England talked of leaving the union circa 1814.


                          TL
                          Signature

                          "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1901329].message }}
                          • Profile picture of the author The 13th Warrior
                            Alright, enough of these extraneous minutiae.

                            Lets get some information to work with that school, college, professors, educators, talkshows, news, t.v., radio and movies FAILED to put into context.

                            Learn what RACISM is and address problems at their root, their cause, and stop chasing endless , extraneous symptoms that lead to nowhere except delusion and symbolism without substance.

                            Maybe one will get it and think, the rest will TOTALLY ignore what has been said .

                            Listen to all 5 part series.

                            "3 teachers suspended" and "miss black america"...?!?!??,....puh-lease.......,











                            ************************************************** *****************
                            When you finished those five, then follow this 15 part series.


                            For more details you will not hear or find in context in history class, listen to this 15 part series.

                            Get a dose of reality and come out of the "Alice in Wonderland" delusions of symbolism without substance.

                            There's nothing else to look for, except delay's and reasonable deniability of whats actual happening.








                            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1901919].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
                      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                      Whats the point of having acres of productive farmland that can easily support your family if you aren't allowed to work it any way you see fit? Especially when that way is helping the nation as a whole grow stronger.
                      A sound, common sense argument for slavery.

                      Ya know Mike, I never really thought of it like that. This is an excellent point, and one that should have been seriously considered in 1860.

                      On a related topic, what's the point of having two beautiful teenage daughters if
                      you can't, ya know, "visit them" when your wife is on her cycle or has a headache?
                      Signature

                      Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
                      http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1900647].message }}
                      • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
                        Originally Posted by AFFILIATE ROB View Post

                        A sound, common sense argument for slavery.

                        Ya know Mike, I never really thought of it like that. This is an excellent point, and one that should have been seriously considered in 1860.

                        On a related topic, what's the point of having two beautiful teenage daughters if
                        you can't, ya know, "visit them" when your wife is on her cycle or has a headache?

                        sounds like something someone from Iowa would ponder. keep working on that.
                        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1900717].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                  Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

                  Slavery was not THE reason for the civil war, though most people think it was. It was about states rights, slavery was one of those 'rights'. Good or bad wasn't the point, the point was it was up to the states and the people that lived in those states to decided for themselves what they would and would not do.

                  When Lincoln was elected the south started seceding and took union forts that were within southern boundaries, he had no intention of stopping slavery. Confederate soldiers led by Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter in NC and it fell. The south tried to pay for the federal installations, Lincoln dismissed them because he didnt recognize the confederacy as a legitimate government and making any kind of deal with them would lend legitimacy to their claim of being a sovereign government..and sent troops to take the forts back by force.

                  If he would have allowed for them to be purchased, the war would have not started, but the u.s. would likely be split in half or thirds.

                  Slavery was the underling reason for the war.

                  The south wanted to keep their way of life and felt the north wanted to take it away from them - so they decided to leave the union.

                  - Some reports are that most of the secessionist states were bum-rushed/tricked/coerced etc., by the secessionists within into succeeding from the union but that's a whole other set of stories.

                  The north said no you don't and it was on.

                  It's like the mob is reputed to be...

                  Once you get in the union you can't get out.

                  Like I said earlier, they started something they couldn't finish, and slavery ended a lot sooner than they ever thought it would.

                  Of course Lincoln said if he could save the union without freeing the slaves - he would do it.

                  Tidbits...

                  - No wonder General McClellan wouldn't fight any battles unless he was 10000% sure we would win. The man was setting things up for his presidential run of 1864.

                  He promised to allow the south to leave if he won - but he lost.

                  - The southern war strategy was to outlast the north and force the north to leave it alone.

                  ( the "it's not worth it" strategy like the North Vietnamese did to us )

                  But the hammer (Grant) and the anvil ( Sherman ) and superior forces, weapons etc. closed the door on that strategy and thus the union was preserved.

                  IMHO, every time our nation has needed a great president, we've produced one.

                  TL
                  Signature

                  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1901284].message }}
                  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
                    Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

                    IMHO, every time our nation has needed a great president, we've produced one.

                    TL

                    A NEED exposes a DEFICIT! And that, itself, kind of shoots down your claim.
                    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1901854].message }}
                    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
                      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

                      A NEED exposes a DEFICIT! And that, itself, kind of shoots down your claim.

                      Well,

                      It could be argued...

                      - We needed the first prez to be a great one since the nation was just beginning.

                      - We needed the 16th prez to be a great one since the future of the nation was at stake.

                      You know, the possible break up of the nation etc.

                      - We needed a great prez to guide us through the mess some people left behind in 1932 and the 2nd world war.

                      I never even hinted that the country was perfect.

                      Once again, what on Earth are you talking about???

                      TL
                      Signature

                      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

                      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1902380].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I guess I'm pretty old fashioned and unrealistic Tim.
    My concept of America is based on what I grew up in,and I'm talking about values, I do believe in changing with the times, but in my opinion core values don't change.
    A weird thing is, I think the boy scout motto is good to live by, and here over almost 50 years since I was a scout, I can remember most if not all of those values.

    Trustworthy
    Loyal
    Helpful
    Friendly
    courteous (sp?)
    Kind
    Obedient
    Cheerful
    Thrifty
    Brave
    Clean
    Reverent

    Corny and idealistic,I know.
    While it may be hard for me to put into words what I think our American culture is, I can probably better tell you what it is not, and many of the things that have our forefathers rolling over in their graves.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887017].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    I didn't want to answer for or before TL since you were asking him directly, but I agree with his answer.
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887227].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
    One and one equals three.

    TL
    Signature

    "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1887617].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mary_k
    [DELETED]
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1890230].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TimPhelan
      Mary, I'm not offended so much as disappointed that you didn't raise the level of intellect or wisdom much. I mean, the first two paragraphs sounded good but you lost me in the third. Sounds like you are ready for a holy war against Israel and you think Israel is a threat to take over the world? Coupled with your comment about the Fed I would think you are into the NWO conspiracy stuff. Good luck with that.

      Originally Posted by mary_k View Post


      P.S -if this post is politically incorrect and my opinions about God, Israel and America offended your own religion or your blind patriotism, I'm deeply sorry.....that your skin is so thin.
      Signature
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1890395].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Yeah Mary - I am offended. I won't try to stop you from speaking your mind, no infractions here because I believe in our first amendment, I believe in your freedom of speech. I also believe the first amendment gives me the freedom of autonomy - and I want to say this

    America's job is not to enforce or even endorse a religion. If you see our Nation's job as running around throwing a particular religions scripture in everyone else's face you completely neglect the fact that there are many of your fellow Americans that do not adhere to your faith, yet they are just as American as you. If you want to preach - fine, but do it in the name of your faith - don't do it in the name of MY country. I am no less American because I REFUSE to adhere to a religion that I do not WANT to adhere to as you are because you are of a particular faith. If you feel that this country only is inclusive of your religious principles than you bring everyone in our military home that is not part of that faith and send only your own legions to die.

    You came in here tooting logic, and all you did was toot a religion as if that were the same as this country. I will admit that this country is and has always been predominantly Christian -- but one of the principles founding this nation is religious freedom because people elsewhere got sick and tired of being tortured and killed for not liking being told how they were to believe under order of the current ruler.

    I do not steal, cheat, kill. I do not take men away from their women. I don't covet my neighbor's possessions. I do not treat others as I would not want to be treated myself --- and I do NOT run around making statements that I am more of an American than anyone else because of my spiritual beliefs.

    I adhere to no man's religion and I AM AN AMERICAN.

    You, sweetie, might have gotten past bigotry based on skin color, but you are a bigot, nonetheless. My country is not a religion. It does, however, allow for all to worship as they please. Don't confuse the two. Don't use this forum as a sounding board for your self-righteous prattle.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1891165].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Mary,

    Europe HAS done a lot! HECK, ****THEY**** did things even 50+ years ago that we only RECENTLY started using. The basis for the stealth technology format, for example, came from RUSSIA! GRANTED, the US had to add computers, a special composite, and somehow refine the basic format so it could fly(They originally named it the hopeless diamond, because their goal seemed hopeless.), but it came from RUSSIA! Some other place in europe once noticed an interesting coincidence. No big deal, prior to the 70s almost EVERYONE figured it out QUICKLY! HECK, I did when I was like SIX! Somehow though, europe was the first to put all the pieces together and refine it to make RADAR!

    The US was perhaps the first nation of its size in the western hemisphere that had SO many people, and people from other countries came HERE! In fact, must of the technology really happened in the last 100 years. So to attribute it all to slavery is just DUMB! And yeah, I'm not disputing things blacks have done also, but most WERE free blacks.

    But when you say "just like Rome, this entire country is completely UNSTABLE and was NOT built to last. Inside factors like the lie of the federal reserve, racism, national and consumer debt, food shortages, political corruption, the environment, education, land and space, etc. are slowly dissipating our beloved "American dream". Plus there are other countries on the other side of this world that are hell-bent on completely killing that dream (and this includes the countries which we think are allies). Just think about this for a minute and forget all that humanist GARBAGE that seems to be the "new religion". Most human beings, especially those in power, are naturally greedy and corrupt. " The only thing I can disagree with is that this country was not built to last. It WAS! It probably would have lasted if people didn't start tinkering with it. I can't speak to Rome, maybe THEY suffered the same fate. Clearly, by the time the new testament was written, they were ALREADY where we seem to be headed.

    BTW The founding fathers OBVIOUSLY thought of religions like Christianity when writing the first amendment. It says congress shall make NO law respecting a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. So having a bible in plain view, witnessing, writing phrases on a government building, etc... IS allowed! To enforce anything to the contrary would be to "prohibit free exercise". But they can't REQUIRE affiliation, or prefer it, or define it, or force anyone to listen to or see and witnessing since that would be "respecting a religion". Of course, if you want to deal with SATANISM, or some such, then you might get into blood sacrifices, etc... and THAT can be legislated, at least in public.

    BTW as to being with/against God....
    how could the belief, if it is one of the top 5 in the US, have any real bearing.

    steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1891168].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Michael Motley
    Here's another tidbit for you.

    Up until just about 2 decades ago ago, many schools in the deep south painted a different picture of the civil war than schools in the north.

    In the north it was taught that the north flat won..no questions asked.

    In the south it was taught that both sides basically fought to a standstill until both sides pretty much gave up...but the south had taken more of a hit than the north and the north claimed victory.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1901300].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AFFILIATE ROB
      Originally Posted by Michael Motley View Post

      Here's another tidbit for you.

      Up until just about 2 decades ago ago, many schools in the deep south painted a different picture of the civil war than schools in the north.

      In the north it was taught that the north flat won..no questions asked.

      In the south it was taught that both sides basically fought to a standstill until both sides pretty much gave up...but the south had taken more of a hit than the north and the north claimed victory.
      That is either a flat-out fabrication or that only happened in YOUR (red)neck of the woods. I was born in the Deep South (Georgia), went to school in the Deep South (Mississippi) from the 6th grade through 12th grade graduation (1978), and at no point was this ever taught in the curriculum.

      I challenge you to either site your sources or stop pulling crap out of your arse and trying to convince us it's fact.
      Signature

      Help an at-risk kid and win a Free 2010 Ford Escape!
      http://www.Win-A-Ford-Escape.com

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1901832].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    13th,

    That first guy, in his suit, with his car, speaking in an auditorium with a PA system AGAINST WHITES, that says that blacks have gone NOWHERE from where they were in 1860 is a JERK!

    SO WHAT if blacks don't own the buildings that he sees. ***I*** don't, and some blacks DO own big buildings. SO WHAT if blacks there don't own planes, boats, etc... ***I*** don't, and some blacks DO! And he figures that all non blacks are whites!?!?!? A number of buildings in the US that aren't owned by blacks AREN'T owned by whites. And there are whites working for blacks, etc....

    He ought to get a REAL job. All he is doing is inciting people to riot.

    As for the immigrants coming in, they are taking jobs away from WHITES also!

    Frankly, if ALL the videos are like that, I see no point in watching any more.

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1903161].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author TLTheLiberator
      Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

      13th,

      That first guy, in his suit, with his car, speaking in an auditorium with a PA system AGAINST WHITES, that says that blacks have gone NOWHERE from where they were in 1860 is a JERK!

      SO WHAT if blacks don't own the buildings that he sees. ***I*** don't, and some blacks DO own big buildings. SO WHAT if blacks there don't own planes, boats, etc... ***I*** don't, and some blacks DO! And he figures that all non blacks are whites!?!?!? A number of buildings in the US that aren't owned by blacks AREN'T owned by whites. And there are whites working for blacks, etc....

      He ought to get a REAL job. All he is doing is inciting people to riot.

      As for the immigrants coming in, they are taking jobs away from WHITES also!

      Frankly, if ALL the videos are like that, I see no point in watching any more.

      Steve
      I can't believe it but I'm in total agreement with Steve.

      What the 13th's point??

      TL
      Signature

      "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1903268].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author JohnMcCabe
        Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator View Post

        I can't believe it but I'm in total agreement with Steve.

        What the 13th's point??

        TL
        Somebody call the NY Times. Not only do Steve and TL agree on something, but I'm agreeing with both of them at the same time. Whoda thunk it?
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1905431].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Praise be, its a miracle, I agree with too!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1905455].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thinkgreen415
    Thanks for sharing that. I had a good laugh. OJ Simpson a hero, Haha
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1906565].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nerrutis
    absurd in this world... thay have nothing else to do or what...
    Teachers and all the world are behaving more than strange these days, doomsday is comming i thing... we will see in 2012
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2084682].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seopositive
    Nice sharing thanks for the post
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2084895].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andie
    Happy Tuesday everyone!!

    I honestly don't know what they will do in another generation or so down the line - with all the interracial offspring that will outnumber any one race or skin color.
    How will anyone argue about being one heritage over the other?
    What boxes do they check on the census forms?

    I've long thought that until NO race - or until ALL races - have their own 'month' or 'scholarship fund' that excludes anything but their own particular kind; it has gone beyond creating 'equality' and does nothing but feed the demon called racism.

    Good, bad, pretty, ugly and all the rest come in any color.
    While my Mississippi grandmother used the 'N' word until she passed, my parents taught me better and my children choose their friends based far more on the type of person they are, than any other standards.

    When I hear OJ Simpson - I think of the football player and my mind goes to car-rental commercials with him hurdling the chairs down the airport.

    I wonder why people so easily forget (dare I say Ignore?) the fact that B.O. is only HALF of any race, at most.

    I doubt the day will ever come that people look in the mirror and say "I'm not taking part in that because it isn't celebrating anything special anymore" because the 'cause' is no longer valid.

    Which month is White History again?
    Where is my White College Fund?
    Why couldn't my child go to public "Pre-school" at age 4? Oh yeah, he already spoke English :/

    Wouldn't it be interesting if it turns out the teachers let the Kids pick the parade pics??

    Andie
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2085492].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by Andie View Post

      Where is my White College Fund?
      DIDN'T you hear? Sometimes UNCF calls THEMSELVES "THE college fund". WOW, I wonder what they would say to a white if he or she applied. I mean in EVERY way they would have to disregard the person's race, but we ALL know they never would. I could say more...

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2086089].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Andie
    Add me to the list of posts # 259-262
    I made it to the 2 min. mark in the video --- thanks for making my point LOL
    Someday, I hope that auditorium is completely empty for guys like that
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2085523].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    "I wonder why people so easily forget (dare I say Ignore?) the fact that B.O. is only HALF of any race, at most."

    I would have to agree that Body Odor (B.O.) is only half the race.
    I think that getting rid of that in conjunction with a winning smile will win almost any race though!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2085955].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Andie
      Originally Posted by KimW View Post

      "I wonder why people so easily forget (dare I say Ignore?) the fact that B.O. is only HALF of any race, at most."

      I would have to agree that Body Odor (B.O.) is only half the race.
      I think that getting rid of that in conjunction with a winning smile will win almost any race though!
      Kim,
      You must be having a good day ~:p
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2086122].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author KimW
    Anyday I get out of bed and am breathing is a good day!
    Signature

    Read A Post.
    Subscribe to a Newsletter
    KimWinfrey.Com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2086254].message }}

Trending Topics