quade 3 #126 July 11, 2012 QuoteWith the above stated principles of the Tea Party, they are 100% in line with Franklin's views. So then, by logical extension. they're ok with considering some people not equal to others. Maybe just going along with the idea they only count for 3/5th of a person? I mean, geeze, that is magnanimous of them. Heck they could even own a couple as long as you write that into their constitution and then just claim they aren't allowed to do anything about it. I mean,my god, their hands would be tied because of a law they helped to write.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dmcoco84 5 #127 July 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteWith the above stated principles of the Tea Party, they are 100% in line with Franklin's views. So then, by logical extension. they're ok with considering some people not equal to others. Maybe just going along with the idea they only count for 3/5th of a person? I mean, geeze, that is magnanimous of them. Heck they could even own a couple as long as you write that into their constitution and then just claim they aren't allowed to do anything about it. I mean,my god, their hands would be tied because of a law they helped to write. So, now I have to ask you the same... ... Is this a serious post? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #128 July 11, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteWith the above stated principles of the Tea Party, they are 100% in line with Franklin's views. So then, by logical extension. they're ok with considering some people not equal to others. Maybe just going along with the idea they only count for 3/5th of a person? I mean, geeze, that is magnanimous of them. Heck they could even own a couple as long as you write that into their constitution and then just claim they aren't allowed to do anything about it. I mean,my god, their hands would be tied because of a law they helped to write. So, now I have to ask you the same... ... Is this a serious post? It kind of is... Franklin was in a position to fight against slavery right at the beginning and he went along with it. In my book that makes him at least a little bit of a douche. There was a lot of it going around back then with people talking about all men being created equal and no taxation without representation, all while owning slaves. As stated near the top of this thread...I think that's a little fucked up.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
loumeinhart 0 #129 July 13, 2012 Dear Chris Rock, Happy White People's day to John Brown, a white man who was hung by fellow white men after being caught trying to (violently) abolish slavery Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #130 July 23, 2012 QuoteQuotePersonally I think that 150 years is more then enough time to get over it, btw. Slavery may have ended 150 (ish) years ago in the US, but it was replaced in much of the country by Jim Crow laws that ensured that blacks were denied educational opportunities, political representation, equal justice, and on and on. When I started as faculty at the University of Georgia, I went thorough an orientation that included the history of the University. One thing that stood out was a series of photos of the student riots that happened when the school accepted the first black students (as a result of court ordered desegregation), in January 1961. It occurred to me at the time (1996) that those photos were taken a mere 35 years ago, and the students in those photos would now mostly be in their mid to late 50's, a point in life where people have moved up the corporate/administrative ladder and have a lot more power to affect people than 20-year-old students do. If they were so full of hate as a 20-year-old in 1961, how much have they really changed in their heart in 35 years? Maybe a lot, maybe not. On the other side of the race coin, we still have a lot of people who grew up under Jim Crow, and in a culture that values family and the "wisdom" of their elders, the bitterness that was put in place still bears sour fruit. Black kids are still sometimes chastised and ostracized for "acting white", meaning doing well in school. There are still a lot of barriers that have to come down before the US "culture" (as if there is such a thing) is close to color blind, on all sides. It'll take more than a couple of generations. Anyway, the point is when it comes to the US we're talking about a couple of generations, not 150 years. Events that are within the living memory of a significant segment of the population are not ancient history. Don Bump. HERE is an interesting essay that deals pretty clearly with this topic: "President Ronald Reagan officially declared the current drug war in 1982, when drug crime was declining, not rising. President Richard Nixon was the first to coin the term “a war on drugs,” but it was President Reagan who turned the rhetorical war into a literal one. From the outset, the war had relatively little to do with drug crime and much to do with racial politics. The drug war was part of a grand and highly successful Republican Party strategy of using racially coded political appeals on issues of crime and welfare to attract poor and working class white voters who were resentful of, and threatened by, desegregation, busing, and affirmative action. In the words of H.R. Haldeman, President Richard Nixon’s White House Chief of Staff: “[T]he whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to.”" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #131 July 23, 2012 Do you actually believe this? Do you believe the CIA invented crack cocaine in order to keep the black man down and that they were selling it to finance a covert war in South America against the Sandinistas? Do you also believe that Iran Contra was all part of this huge conspiracy and cover-up? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #132 July 23, 2012 Quote Do you actually believe this? Do you believe the CIA invented crack cocaine in order to keep the black man down and that they were selling it to finance a covert war in South America against the Sandinistas? Do you also believe that Iran Contra was all part of this huge conspiracy and cover-up? Excuse me? Do you always respond in a knee jerk manner, hurling bullshit red herrings into the discusiion. There is no mention of the CIA, Sandinistas, South America, or Iran/Contra. WTF?? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #133 July 23, 2012 Quote Quote Do you actually believe this? Do you believe the CIA invented crack cocaine in order to keep the black man down and that they were selling it to finance a covert war in South America against the Sandinistas? Do you also believe that Iran Contra was all part of this huge conspiracy and cover-up? Excuse me? Do you always respond in a knee jerk manner, hurling bullshit red herrings into the discusiion. There is no mention of the CIA, Sandinistas, South America, or Iran/Contra. WTF?? Not huge leap at all. You are alleging the war on drugs was racially motivated by the Reagan Admin. Sortly afterwards, crack cocaine showed up in the ghettos of America. Many think the CIA was responsible for bringing in crack. Many also believe that if the CIA brough crack in, that they did so to make money that was used to purchase arms from Iran to be given to the Contras in their civil war against the Sandinista in Nicaragua. The Sadinistas were socialists and we all know that Reagan was opposed to Socialism and did everything posible during his Presidency to destroy it. So if the War on Drugs was racially motivated as you allege, why is it such a big leap to believe the tie in with Iran-Contra and the war in Nicaragua during the same era? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #134 July 23, 2012 Quote Quote Quote Do you actually believe this? Do you believe the CIA invented crack cocaine in order to keep the black man down and that they were selling it to finance a covert war in South America against the Sandinistas? Do you also believe that Iran Contra was all part of this huge conspiracy and cover-up? Excuse me? Do you always respond in a knee jerk manner, hurling bullshit red herrings into the discusiion. There is no mention of the CIA, Sandinistas, South America, or Iran/Contra. WTF?? Not huge leap at all. You are alleging the war on drugs was racially motivated by the Reagan Admin. Sortly afterwards, crack cocaine showed up in the ghettos of America. Many think the CIA was responsible for bringing in crack. Many also believe that if the CIA brough crack in, that they did so to make money that was used to purchase arms from Iran to be given to the Contras in their civil war against the Sandinista in Nicaragua. The Sadinistas were socialists and we all know that Reagan was opposed to Socialism and did everything posible during his Presidency to destroy it. So if the War on Drugs was racially motivated as you allege, why is it such a big leap to believe the tie in with Iran-Contra and the war in Nicaragua during the same era? So now you're cooking those red herrings. They smell very bad. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #135 July 23, 2012 Then let me simplify my question for you. If you would believe that shit, what else would you believe? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChangoLanzao 0 #136 July 23, 2012 Quote Then let me simplify my question for you. If you would believe that shit, what else would you believe? What shit? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,478 #137 July 23, 2012 Please start a new thread if you want to talk about that topic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #138 April 30, 2013 QuoteQuotePigford v Glickman How many more $Billions until white guilt is eased? http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_29166.phpUSDA helping to support white farmers, while illegally denying such help to black farmers, is a perfect example of institutionalized racism. Note that the USDA admitted that the problem continued until 1997, which is hardly "ancient history". Do you have a problem in general with people who ask for compensation when they are harmed by illegal activity, or only if the victims are black? Maybe you think the courts should only try to recover embezzled funds from Bernie Madoff's white victims, because compensating black investors would be "white guilt"? Here's a hint: if a crime specifically targets black farmers, most of the victims will be (you guessed it) black farmers! Interesting "news" source you linked to. It seems to make quite an art of race baiting. Also, it seems anyone who isn't a white Christian is out to destroy America. If that's where you get your "news" from, it explains a lot. Don The race baiting works both ways http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2013/04/29/Andrew-Was-Right-National-Review-s-Pigford-Editorial"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
regulator 0 #139 April 30, 2013 Chris rock also sucks the presidents dick on thursdays before calling him daddy. Who cares what that little twat thinks? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
