Savage: "America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency"
Referring to Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama, Michael Savage stated: "We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to a -- an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say amen and yes to this affirmative election vote?" He later added, "America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency."
On the February 1 broadcast of The Savage Nation, host Michael Savage stated that the Democratic presidential nominating contest "is, or can be seen as, the first affirmative action election in American history." Referring to Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), Savage continued: "We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say amen and yes to this affirmative election vote?"
Savage made the remarks while discussing the January 31 Democratic presidential debate, held at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood, California, which was the first debate after the field of prospective Democratic presidential nominees had been narrowed to just Clinton and Obama. Savage also predicted that American voters would ultimately reject the Democratic candidate, whoever it is, stating, "I can predict right now they're gonna lose because when the American people themselves have been able to vote for or against affirmative action, as most recently they did on a ballot initiative in very liberal Michigan, they voted against affirmative action." He added: "When they are heard from, the affirmative action ticket goes down in flames. ... I don't really care who's gonna be on the other side, they win. America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency. I stand by those words."
According to Talk Radio Network, which syndicates Savage's show, Savage is heard on more than 350 radio stations. Talkers Magazine has indicated that The Savage Nation reaches more than 8 million listeners each week, making it the third most listened-to talk radio show in the nation, behind only The Rush Limbaugh Show and The Sean Hannity Show.
From the February 1 edition of Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation:
SAVAGE: See, I'm not gonna do politics. I told you I'm filibustering the Wolf Blitzer -- the Blitzerian view of the world. I can't take it anymore. I cannot take talking about one-dimensional, shallow men and women. I will do so from time to time when I think it's appropriate. Right now I've had enough of it. I've had enough of it to last a lifetime. I'll make one comment about last night's charade in the Kodak Theater in Hollywood. Didn't it look like the Academy Awards? You saw Meathead there, you saw all the radical red-diaper doper babies from Brooklyn who made a fortune in the film business by urinating on the American flag and decimating the American value, the values that you grew up loving. They were all in there, weren't they? The ones who made a fortune hating America.
Do you realize that this is, or can be seen as, the first affirmative action election in American history? Let me repeat that again. We have a woman and a multi-ethnic man running for office on the Democrat side. Is this not akin to an affirmative action election? Isn't that why the libs are hysterical, tripping over themselves to say amen and yes to this affirmative election vote? In many ways you could say this election is about the mandate called affirmative action, and I can predict right now they're gonna lose because when the American people themselves have been able to vote for or against affirmative action, as most recently they did on a ballot initiative in very liberal Michigan, they voted against affirmative action.
You understand what I just said to you? The American people haven't been heard from yet. This is all staged, it's all stooges, it's all controlled by the parties, the people have not yet been heard from. When they are heard from, the affirmative action ticket goes down in flames. You can mark this down, you can mark this down. Mark it in bronze. Mark it in bronze they lose. I don't really care who's gonna be on the other side, they win. America's not ready for an affirmative action presidency. I stand by those words.
The other right-wing media mogul you should worry about
Palin's book and Obama's bow: a media week to forget
Media Matters: The Palin chronicles
We get it, Savage - you're a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan!
And that begs the question, so what? A lot of the republicans who weren't klansmen became democrats, and a lot of the democrats who were klansmen became republicans. Something to do with the civil rights movement...
Although often still discussed in contemporary American politics as representing the quintessential "fringe" end of the far-right spectrum, today the group only exists in the form of isolated, scattered groups with a total membership numbering no more than a few thousand.[75] In a 2002 report on "Extremism in America", the Jewish Anti-Defamation League wrote "Today, there is no such thing as the Ku Klux Klan. Fragmentation, decentralization and decline have continued unabated." However, they also noted that the "need for justification runs deep in the disaffected and is unlikely to disappear, regardless of how low the Klan's fortunes eventually sink."[76] Since late 2006 the Anti-Defamation League has revised its assessment of the Ku Klux Klan, claiming that "The Ku Klux Klan, which just a few years ago seemed static or even moribund [...], has experienced a surprising and troubling resurgence due to the successful exploitation of hot-button issues including immigration, gay marriage and urban crime".[77]
And just for fun, isn't it interesting that prostitutes do so much more business when a GOP convention is in town? Must be those family values they tout all the time...
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/04/sex-workers-get-more-business-at-gop-conventions/
Well, didn't mean to touch a raw nerve, but hey, I'm old. Some habits are hard to break! ;)
I thought I was done nagging about the abuse of the phrase "beg the question",but I hate to see a pretend lawyer who can't even fake an explanation.
Begging the question means to assume something in making your argument that needs to be proved in order to make your argument.Histy, you don't want to make a fool of yourself in front of your marine biologist and Supreme court justice spouse friends, so shape up!
This should have been covered at Law school, even pretend Law School.
His hero, Gramps, told the old lawyer joke yesterday. It was the one that asks about the difference between a lawyer and a catfish.
It was offensive to lawyers. Real ones anyway.
"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which an argument is assumed to be true without evidence other than the argument itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.
A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question
You think Histy is the type that yells out the answers (sorry, questions) on Jeopardy after the contestants get them right? The best part is our legal beagle, even after having it explained, copied and pasted from this site, the first one that came up by Googling "Beg the question".
Now we have to cover plagiarism (although he did put quotation marks around the whole thing).
I hope he still has his receipt from that Law school.
The KKK endorsed RACIST REPUBLICAN RONALD REAGAN in 1980, and when Racist Reagan ran for re-election in 1984.
Anti-black Negro conservative white supremacist of color Ward "Con Man" Connerly has welcomed the racist KKK as his newfound allies in hsi anti-affirmative action/pro-white supremacy crusade as he pushes the passage of more white supremacy initiatives. Black talk radio, specifically Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690, and black talk radio host Mark Thompson, have both declared WAR on Ward "Con Man" Connerly because of his alliances with the KKK and other white supremacist groups.
Anti-black Negro conservative Republican Walter Williams is a friend and political ally of right wing white supremacist Jared Taylor and Taylor's white supremacist group, American Renaissance. Another anti-black Negro conservative Republican, Jesse Lee Peterson, is both a friend and political ally of ANOTHER right wing white supremacist, specifically white supremacist Glenn Spencer, the head of the racist white supremacist group National Alliance.
REPUBLICAN Dana Rohrabacher accepts campaign contributions from the right wing conservative Neo-Nazi Pioneer Fund.
ANTI-BLACK NEGRO CONSERVATIVE RADIO HOST Ken Hamblin is the only KNOWN black member of the racist white supremacist group The Council of Conservative Citizens.
Explain why black conservatives are politically allied with and/or members of white supremacist groups, Republicans. Expalin NOW.
SEE IT REAL:
Wow! Powerful stuff, well researched, and beyond challenge. Well done!
You just lied. Harry Truman was NOT a member of the Ku Klux Klan. The KKK endorsed Racist Republican Ronald Reagan, in fact. When Reagan first ran for governor of California in 1966, he told a Los Angeles Times Reporter that he would have voted AGAINST the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act if he had been a U.S. House Representative or a U.S. Senator in 1964. Racist Reagan called the 1964 Civil Rights Act "...unfair to the South."
Byrd left the KKK years ago, and has renounced them and apologized for joining them more times than I can count. In contrast, the dis-likes of Racist Republican U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has NOT ceased accepting campaign contributions from the Pioneer Fund, a Neo-Nzi connected white supremacist group.
Point well-taken.
Besides: What kind of "signs" would be necessary to determine whether America is "ready for an affirmative-action President"? (Cf. North Korean "news reports" from the fall of 1997 as claimed that the sudden and spontaneous blossoming of thousands of pear and apricot trees out of season, not to mention a fisheries crew catching a white sea cucumber, "confirmed" the formal elevation of "Dear Leader" Kim Jong Il to "Great Leader.)
Or Savage/Weiner is a member of the Aryan Nations, or the white supremacist group American Renaissance.
Perhaps Solon saw this general election poll that says you were wrong?
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
Those are polls of registered voters, not likely voters. They don't predict who will actually show up. Those polls are meaningless. Here's one that actually samples likely voters:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
In general election match-ups, McCain leads Clinton 47% to 39% while Clinton leads Romney 50% to 37%. Obama and McCain are tied at 44% while the Illinois Senator leads Romney 44% to 41%
RINO:
Recap how that polling stuff worked in New Hampshire not so long ago? Please? What's that you say? Polling has NO WAY of measuring "surprise" voters who are showing up in DROVES to oppose Bush's reign of error/terror and to SUPPORT change?
TWICE as many Democratic voters are showing up in the primaries than GOPers, and this "trend" is throwing the polls into uselessness.
McCain offers not only ENDLESS WAR in Iraq, lasting 100 YEARS, and a continuation of Bush's failed and disastrous policies, but also LOTS MORE WARS coming! And an AFFIRMATION of Bush's Economic policies.
Faced with THAT, Americans will think quite simply, "Am I happy with the way things have been going these last seven years?" Guess what? Almost NOBODY IS HAPPY with Bush. And they will not vote for MORE Bush, i.e. McCain. McCain is MORE BUSH.
It's a NO MORE election. NO MORE Iraq war. NO MORE trillion dollar deficits. NO MORE outing of CIA agents for craven political gain. NO MORE Halliburton no-bid billion-dollar contracts. NO MORE "preemptive war" to preempt that which does not exist. NO MORE kicking immigration reform and health care down the road. NO MORE violations of the Constitution. NO MORE Dick Cheney. NO MORE torture. NO MORE spying on American citizens with no cause. NO MORE arrogant leadership, bent on tyranny.
NO MORE!!!!!
"McCain offers not only ENDLESS WAR in Iraq, lasting 100 YEARS, and a continuation of Bush's failed and disastrous policies, but also LOTS MORE WARS coming"
Well, this may suprise you but I completely agree with you. McCain is insane on the Iraq issue and foreign policy in general. He's a neocon who wants endless war abroad and big government here at home. Romney is at least more sensible on foreign policy issues. He has at least said that we shouldn't have a permanent military presence in Iraq. He seems to be much more of a traditional conservative than a neo-con like McCain.
Uhh no, he's not. Double the size of Gitmo? He's another murder, kill, death Republican who extols the vitrtues of psychopathic militarism.
I do agree that the connection wasn't my finest. Still do you really believe Romney offers any substantial difference from Bush when it comes to fighting terrorism?
Is Romney an anti-NATO go it alone, psycho cowboy on foreign policy or not?
Does he believe alliances and police tactics are part of the solution or is he the type who believes that military might alone can quell terrorism?
Does he ignore history and claim that everything changed on 9/11 or does he seek the counsel of those who understand the relationship of the past to the present and future?
I would say from what I've heard in the debates that he believes in more of the same, except that he would just go bigger.
"McCain offers not only ENDLESS WAR in Iraq, lasting 100 YEARS, and a continuation of Bush's failed and disastrous policies, but also LOTS MORE WARS coming"
Well, this may suprise you but I completely agree with you. McCain is insane on the Iraq issue and foreign policy in general. He's a neocon who wants endless war abroad and big government here at home. Romney is at least more sensible on foreign policy issues. He has at least said that we shouldn't have a permanent military presence in Iraq. He seems to be much more of a traditional conservative than a neo-con like McCain. - RINO Hunter
If you define flip-flopping and/or lying on issues, such as McCain's flip-flops and/or lies on immigration and/or his flip-flops and lies on the Bush Rich Man's Tax Cuts, then yes, RINO, McCain IS a "traditional conservative" if flip-flopping is a conservative trait.
The corporate conservative Republican Party controlled news media is showing McCain MONUMENTAL favoritism, even MORE favoritism that they showed Bush when he was the GOP candidate in 2000, and when he ran for re-election in 2004. In fact, reading pieces from Bob Somerby's The Daily Howler http://www.dailyhowler.com the conservative media was conspiring to favor Bush in 1999, before the 2000 presidential election even began. More on that later.
Except that the GOP front runner McCain is beating both Clinton and Obama in general election polls. You somehow forgot to mention that.
Hey there Rino, you somehow forgot to mention that Dr. James Dobson(right wing evangelical side of your party) said he would never vote for McCain period. Comedian Rush Limbo (right wing psycho side of your party) is urging Repubs not to vote for McCain on super Tuesday and Malnourished Annie going to support Hillary rather than McCain. Now how reliable is that poll again?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53743
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/limbaugh-mccain.html
http://jezebel.com/351442/ann-coulter-will-campaign-for-hillary-if-its-mccain
Do you EVER know what you are talking about? First polls about who you ARE going to vote for this early arent very reliable. Second the polls are all over the place some show Clinton or Obama beat McCain some show the other way some show a virtual tie. In the end though the monumental incompetence and disaster that define the Bush presidence will, in my opinion, be the deciding factor and your precious GOP is going to circle the drain for about a generation. In Congress you guys are going to take a bloodbath and I think the Dems will take the White House. My opinion is certainly as good as Fins. I have picked every election correctly but one since Jimmy Carter. Keep dreaming though delusions are your entire life so why should this be any different?
"the monumental incompetence and disaster that define the Bush presidence will, in my opinion, be the deciding factor" - Well, if Bush were running for re-election, I would say you are correct. If a successful businessman like Romney gets the nomination, he is a drastically different "breed" of republican than Bush, at least I hope. Now, if you want to talk about tainted presidential terms haunting the parties and candidates...Hillary certainly has a boat load to deal with, its just further back in people's memory.
"In Congress you guys are going to take a bloodbath and I think the Dems will take the White House." - Really? The Dem Congress promised to set a date for Iraq and get us out, that didn't happen. They promised to cut wasteful "pork" spending...and many of the top recipients are democrats. They failed to pass immigration reform. They haven't done so good a job that I would go around bragging that it's going to be a "bloodbath."
100% bull. Romney's record shows that he doesn't take or keep a strong stance on anything once he has achieved office. He is just as poll driven as any politician has ever been accused of being.
And before you go believing all the hot air about Romney being the only "real conservative" in the race, try to remember that the majority of the people behind him were saying exactly the same things about Bush in 2000 and 2004. It wasn't until Bush's popularity started dropping and the Democrat wins in 2006 that it was suddenly discovered that Our Dear Leader was actually "a liberal in disguise" all this time.
SOLON:
The TREND is for GOPers to RETIRE rather than face re-election this year. Over 30 have officially "cut and run" from facing their constituents again, linked as they are with BUSH and his disastrous tenure. Why are they bowing out NOW? They can read their OWN polls, and they see DEFEAT in their future. Egotistical as they are (and cowardly), they QUIT rather than face the embarrassment.
The GOP incumbents themselves see what the usual polls are NOT showing: The GOP is toast. Meanwhile, the MSM is busy telling us McCain will be our next president, and the POLLING FIRMS are using their ordinary models while Democrats are showing up in record numbers, TWICE the GOP turnout.
I am not one to discount polls in general, but I think we can all agree that general election polls this far out are pretty meaningless. A general match-up poll is pretty much name recognition at this point. I think at this point, the closest thing to look at would be an unnamed Dem vs. an unnamed Rep. Also, McCain has not been put under the media microscope by any stretch of the imagination (maybe he never will), which makes a huge difference.
RIN,
Stop it.... you sound like one of those right-wing twits I keep reading about here on MMFA......
ON XM Radio... the POTUS 08 channel read out all the recent polls and they all have Obama beating McCave and Millard between 8% - 12% points!
Even Hillary beats Millard by 5%, only McCave comes closest at beating her with, if I remember right, leads in polls by less than 1%
The GOP has sold its collective soul to Cheney.....er I mean Satan!
This country may not be fully ready for a woman or a black man as president but when those options are contrasted to what the GOP offers.... I seriously doubt that a Republican will be in the WH this time around?
Well, you know what they say -
money can't buy you love, but it can buy the presidency.
The wingnut noise machine and accomplices in the mainstream media painted Kerry as a tax raising, troop hating, wound faking, French looking, pointy headed, effete, intellectual liberal who would destroy this country. And even with all that, Georgey Boy barely squeaked out a victory.
Hardly a rousing rejection of liberal philosophy in my book. It's like looking at a table of 10 in a restaurant and concluding that because 6 of them got chicken and only 4 got beef that the table all hated beef.
"Fifty percent of americans vote, and fifty percent read the paper. One hopes they're the same half." - George Shaw (I think)
Nobody thought that a President who screwed up as badly as Bush would get re-elected either. That basically just shows how much the American people dislike the Democrats.
No, RINO, it showed how much the conservative media showed monumental favoritism to Bush, and how the dis-likes of Republicans like Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, Chris Matthews, etc., all favored and loved Bush and/or attacked any people or groups that spoke out against him. This conservative media has favored and sustained Bush more than they have favored and sustained any Republican in modern history.
It also showed that the dis-likes of roll-over accomodating failing Dem MIS-handlers like Bob Schrumm and Mary Beth Cahill helped Kerry damage himself by telling him to let the Swift Boat Liars lies about him go unchallenged.
If i do see a trend particular to a race I would most certainly not deny it, something so many are doing. I am not afraid of individual differences and do not classify everyone in my "generalization," Certain black friends i have known most definitely i do not classify among the others.
Fin, using the racist phrase "black friends" or any variation therof is a long-time racist figure of speech.
Also, when an unqualified rich white male gets an undeserved school admission (Bush getting into Yale because he's Bush Senior's son and his C student status PROVED he didn't deserve to be admitted into Yale) and/or a job or promotion and/or a contract for no other reason other than he's a rich white male and/or the son or grandson or nephew and/or friend's son of ANOTHER rich white male, tell us why you support the rich white male good ol'boys network, and/or why you are a racist white supremacist defender of the rich white mele entitlement system even when they deny jobs and school admissions to poor and middle class white males. Or do you think that rich white males are entitled to these things just because they are white males?
RH,
Are you going to vote for McCain? Do you think of him as a RINO? Who are you voting for or who have you voted for?
RINO:
Here's your boy ... or is this some sort of "trick", perhaps an evil twin?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvIOK, somebody tell me the procedure for highlighting a hyperlink.
I go to a site, copy the address, get set to post it here in the comments section, and then ... what? Anybody?
Brab:
I see no "chain" as an icon on my comment box. I have preview, cut, copy, paste, bullet, number, indent, bold, italic, and underline. No chain. What now?
Maybe if I highlight the text FIRST:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9IJUkYUbvI
BRAB:
Yes, got it right the second time. Thanks much!
RH,
If you vote for Romney, I hope you never ever post about a Democrat changing his or her mind ever again. He is "halfway conservative" this time because so is his audience.
I have a feeling that his view of military service is the same as yours will be someday. He said on 60 Minutes: "I regret every day that I was not in Vietnam." To which my dad said: "You coulda had my spot."
I know abortion is one of your main issues. How can you trust Romney's complete 180 on this one?
As far as voters not like the Dems in 2004 here is my theory: I will guarantee you that most Bush voters think that the Swifties were honest. I will also guarantee you that most thought you shouldn't change the C in C in the middle of War and I will also promise you they felt safe since they were not attacked since 2001. These same people will say that Clinton did not keep them safe since 1993, think that Bush's lack of service in Vietnam was no biggie and not mind the size of the government because he is W.
Going back to 1996, these same people hated Clinton because he did not serve and loved Dole for that reason (but let Bush slide), in 1992 they hated Clinton because "I did not inhale" was out there, but let Bush's ambiguous statement about cocaine go and not mind that he was an alcoholic because he was born again. They hate Clinton because he was a "big government liberal" but don't mind that Bush grew the Federal Government bigger than ever. They love W because of the pledge of fiscal conservative rule, but neglect that he turned a surplus into a deficit. They will hate Bill Clinton because of the fear of tax and spend, but love W despite the spending with no regard for the future. The American public is nothing but fickle.
RH,
So if Romney loses, then what?
Unreal, RH. I guess this is what you will stand for:
"McCain is insane on the Iraq issue and foreign policy in general. He's a neocon who wants endless war abroad and big government here at home."
I am utterly speechless, RH. It looks to me like you are putting party way ahead of country. If you vote for him, will you be forced to hunt yourself? If he is for endless war and you vote for him, he is going to be looking in your direction
Fin,
You find a way to become more and more offensive with every post, congrats!
Reps aren't "anti-American", they're just as hungry for power as the dems. One side says do for yourself (basically), and the other side says we'll do for you. (basically)
Meantime, in order to win they just tweak a little here and there in order to curry favor according to which way the wind is blowing.
Right now it's healthcare, illegals, war, taxes, and probably a little terror will be thrown in when it's a 2 man race, unless Hillary gets her pathetic act together.
Now, if you think Bush and parts of the administration is "anti-American" , that's different. They made a lot of mistakes, and will end up with one of the worst records of all time. But ther'll be no impeachment like Billyboy got: wasn't THAT fun?
Also, you ignore the fact that the majority opinion on taxes, healthcare and Iraq favors traditional liberal positions.
In many ways you could say this election is about the mandate called affirmative action...
Except for one big giant substantial way: Nobody who participates in an election and votes, is ever "mandated" or otherwise required, to vote one way or another.
It wouldn't be called a Democracy if they were.
Everyone in America who presently prefers their candidate, be he or she of any ethnic group or whatever, does so of their own free Democratic choice, and not because of any "mandate".
It's an enormous distinction to make here... only an idiot could miss it.
I cannot take talking about one-dimensional, shallow men and women.
Mirror, mirror on the wall . . .
You saw Meathead there, you saw all the radical red-diaper doper babies from Brooklyn who made a fortune in the film business by urinating on the American flag and decimating the American value, the values that you grew up loving.
Shared world view with Archie Bunker. Red-diaper doper babies? WTF? And name one of them who has urinated on the flag or decimated American values? (As if Savage promotes American values).
This is all staged, it's all stooges, it's all controlled by the parties.
Then by all means, name the culprits and their stooges conspriracy boy. . . along with your mountains of evidence.
I'm beginning to realize where all the 9/11 truthers come from.
Right on all counts, Unit.
Blacks and women are still considered "minorities" in this country so what else do you expect? The thing is, Savage is the only one who calls it as it is, while everyone else is afraid to say it. That doesn't make him right as far as his analysis is concerned, but he still manages to hit a nerve.
Thar's sumpin' to dat an' dats all 't e'er is.
Weiner/Savage, and most of the sub-human "people" who listen to his show, are all racists and are also white supremacists, with a small sprinkling of anti-black Negro conservative racist white supremacists who all hate the fact that they were born black instead of being white.
Related point: The anti-black Negro conservative Ward "Con Man" Connerly, the anti-black Negro face on the 21st Century White Supremacy Initiative Drives, as he scammed the passage of the Michigan White Supremacy Initiative in 2006, is an ally of the KKK and the Racist Council of Conservative Citizens. The C. of C.C.'s Michigan Chapter aided "Con Man" Connerly in Michigan, and Connerly is hated by blacks because of his consorting with white supremacist groups.
Black blogger David A. Love exposed Connerly'salliance with white supremacists recently: http://www.davidalove.blogspot.com
Buf,
Are you still advocating a coup? If so, why do you hate democracy? Further, when did you go to law school? Did you go with Rudy?
1976-1979. that had to be much after rudy, as i went to law school rather late in life, at least for a law student.
i never said i had connections to rudy, i had experience with him. when rudy was running for the senate, a friend had him to breakfast at his house in beverly hills. we are about 50 people. he was personable and charming. i donated $1000. he raised about 75k for a 25 minute talk and some questions. i never got a thank you note and neither did the host.
last year, a friend in another city arranged an event and dinner for him. he got paid handsomely, i am certain. same treatment.
otoh, a friend is a law partner of his and played golf with him. he thinks he's a capitol guy. i can't share that feeling.
HSTYBUF:
So, you wouldn't INSTIGATE a military "coup", but you'd have no objection.
The election of 2000, where the one-member "majority" amounting to the FIVE partisans on the Supreme Court OVERRULED the will of the American people, and disinfranchised valid, legal voters in order to install GW Bush in office. If ever there were a time for an uprising against hostile takeover of this nation, that was the moment.
America has paid a tremendous price for deciding instead to TRUST in our institutions and just accept the Supreme Court's utterly bogus ruling (which NOT A ONE of them can support to this day).
Bush ignored threats, and 3000 Americans died on American soil on 9/11.
Dick Cheney actually WARNED of this, WARNED America that our safety was at risk. He said, "It’s absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we’ll get hit again and we’ll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States."
The American People made the RIGHT choice: Al Gore had the votes of MORE AMERICAN CITIZENS than Bush. The Supreme Court had other ideas. By their "majority" of ONE, they overruled the American People and installed BUSH, the WRONG choice. And sure enough, Cheney was CORRECT: we were hit in a devastating manner.
Since then, Bush has perpetrated MANY devastating atrocities on the American People, and around the world. Well over a hundred thousand INNOCENT Iraqi citizens are now dead (some estimates make it at more like a MILLION dead). 4000 brave American soldiers are dead, 30,000 maimed and dismembered for life, never again to be the same.
America has lost the status of the "shining city", the EXAMPLE of humanity and excellence to the world, leading by example into democracy, freedom, and fair treatment. Instead, we are the nation of unprovoked "PREEMPTIVE WAR", launched without overt threat, and launched with RATIONALE that turns out to be FALSE. We are now the nation of TORTURE, and of ignoring international law like the Geneva Conventions. We are invaders and occupiers, pillagers of other nations' natural resources.
We are a nation that spies on its own citizens, without ANY due process of law. We are a nation whose "leader" does not feel compelled to follow the LAWS written by our democratic legislature. We hold prisoners without charging them, or giving them the right to defend themselves.
In short, we are now an IMPERIALIST TYRANNY, in the eyes of the world.
This is ALL on the Supreme Court. THEY did it, and WE, THE PEOPLE should NOT have allowed this usurpation of our self-rule. But we did, because we TRUSTED to our institutions. And we have paid dearly, in blood, in reputation, in treasure, and in our very future.
The time for PEACEFUL revolution is upon us. We MUST cast out the era of Republican coup, and vote in enough numbers for CHANGE to DEMOCRATIC rule that the would-be usurpers cannot hope to hold sway.
VOTE DEMOCRATIC ... let's take back our nation from those craven would-be tyrants who have brought us low.
"The time for PEACEFUL revolution is upon us." - When was the last violent revolution upon us? And also, tell that to the radical muslims that already are living here in the good old USA.
"VOTE DEMOCRATIC ... let's take back our nation from those craven would-be tyrants who have brought us low." - First, tell me how your personal life and liberty has been somehow lowered since Clinton left office. Second, no matter who becomes president next, our personal lives will basically remain the same. We will get taxed too much, and we will always have complaints.
Well, I can't go to the library and be certain my reading habits aren't being closely monitored by DHS. Furthermore, librarians are compelled by law to tell no one they have have been coerced to hand over my personal records.
Is that, in your mind, the kind of liberty and freedom our founding fathers had in mind for us?
Cry me a river because the government might monitor people reading "bomb-building 101" or the "anarchist cook book."
Personally, I don't think big brother should be monitoring any part of our lives. Unfortunately, that isn't the case these days. And by the way, you're still free to go check out those books and read them, nobody is stopping you.
I really love how you get belligerent when stuck in a difficult position, it really makes your argument so much stronger.
Sorry, wrong response to the wrong post.
I'm not belligerent, I just dont think that my freedoms have been curtailed because the government might monitor people checking out sketchy books.
But telling me to cry you a river is belligerent. And whether or not you're bothered by your privacy rights being infringed does not change the fact that they are indeed being infringed.
The loss of Habeus Corpus is a real slam to EVERYONE's freedom and liberty. The "leader" (BUSH or his agents) on his own say-so, telling nobody and needing no proof, can deprive ANYONE of freedom, lock them up, cite NO charges, allow them NO legal counsel, and even TORTURE them.
"BUT" you say, "That only happens to TERRORISTS." Really? How do you know? Did you MISS the part where they don't have to say who they're holding, or why, or make charges, or allow legal counsel?
Just like they can't tell you (or even a JUDGE) who they're spying on, or how, or for what reason. They won't even DISCUSS it, because they claim it's "national security". Again, HOW DO WE KNOW? Where are the checks and balances against abuse? THERE ARE NONE. They can be looking for terrorists, or they might be doing opposition research on Democrats. They won't say, only that we have to TRUST them.
The partisan rightwingers on the Supreme Court deprived Americans of their VOTES, ruling to quit counting the legal and valid votes in Florida and instead just install BUSH in office.
A great deal of erosion, amounting to OUTRIGHT LOSS of rights and liberties have befallen American citizens as a result of Bush Administration actions. They say it's "for our own good" ... as tyrants always DO.
HSTY,
So you are against the American Democratic system, is that a fair assumption? Why do you hate America?
See it real, This man connerly you call anti-negro is only someone willing to see what other blacks ignore in their self-delusionment. He is one of those that will not blind himself to the foibles of his race, and i salute him for using his logic rather than his feelings.
Fin,
Why do you come here and spew this garbage. Based on your example, we should never ever have an Eastern European anywhere close to the government because they are all race warriors, right?
Even if you saw a trend in a race, why does everyone have to fit those categories? Are you afraid of individual differences?
Freidberboy, Its interesting and amusing. Eastern Europeans actually are still predominantly conservative and still have national pride. They are what you would call "race warriors" but this is not at all a bad thing, its what our government needs.
If i do see a trend particular to a race I would most certainly not deny it, something so many are doing. I am not afraid of individual differences and do not classify everyone in my "generalization," Certain black friends i have known most definitely i do not classify among the others.
Fin,
Share your theories about interracial marriage and that they have lower median IQs in your mind than white people. See how that goes over. Also, tell them of your equal segregation plan and get back to me.
So now we have a new wingnut analogy to contend with – “The affirmative action presidential race”. You may have heard it from Weiner Savage first, but it won’t be the last time you hear it. Tomorrow it will be Sean Hannity using the phrase – then Bill O’Reilly – then Tucker Carlson - then Glenn Beck – and by the end of the week you’ll hear it on Fox News Sunday.
Funny how these are the same idiots who claimed that because Hillary is a “rich white woman” it is laughable that anyone could call her a “victim” – or that Barrack Obama isn’t “black enough” to have “street cred” with African American voters.
I’d gladly give up a night in jail for the opportunity to be within punching distance of this pig. But I doubt the man exposes himself to anything other than the walls of his radio studio and mansion, or interior of his car. His disconnect with the real world and obsessions with his fascist fantasies are proof of that.
The conservative posters here can say what they want. Bill Mahrer said it last Friday and I agree. Conservatives are uncomfortable with this election and uncomfortable where America may be heading. Their way of doing things is outdated, globally. They don't know what to make of Obama other than his name sounds muslim. They don't know what to make of Hillary other than they're afraid of her voice. What pertainent criticism has come from the GOP? Have you seen where the country has been the past 8 years? Americans aren't that naieve. The republicans, the Bush Administration specifically, hurt this country and hurt themselves. Trust in government is at an all time low and the many atrocities committed against the constitution since the beginning of Bush's term lends testament to this. But believe what you will Finface. You'll enjoy where this country heads with a leader, not a liberal not a conservative, but a leader!
Next thing you know, expect the Zealots and True Believers of hyperconservatism to call for a boycott of the polls as a show of protest against the lack of such Presidential candidates expected to epitomise the so-called "conservative" agenda.
Or, on the other hand, support some third-party candidate with ties to the Far Right as could unwittingly skew the vote to the Democrats (cf. Ross Perot's 1992 Presidential campaign triggering Bill Clinton's victory).
I read things like this and the comments from Boortz, and it occurs to me just how ready this country is for a prominent culture that does not involve old racist white guys telling a diverse and active culture what it is and is not ready for.
I'm sorry that my state does not participate in this tremendous movement towards change until May. I'm going to have a hell of a time watching the surge from the grassroots take place tomorrow, though.
Or, you can accept that right now, America is the greatest nation on earth. Sure, we have had some bad things happen in the past, every nation has. We don't carry out certain behaviors or policies any longer. You don't like what America has to offer? You hate that this is a majority white/christian nation? Get out and go somewhere else that is more diverse and inclusive for you...because if offering a voting ballot in 14+ different languages isn't inclusive enough for you, you don't belong here.
John,
Are you gonna be ok when a woman or an African-American is the President or are YOU going to get out?
That was a brilliant point, John. I would like to put your idea into analgy form, so everone can understand it better. YOu are riding in the car with a friend of yours. He hears a ping in your engine from an accident you had years ago. He is a mechanic and offers to take a look at it. You immediately screech to the side of the road and start yelling at him that the car is fine, and if he doesn't like how the car runs, he can get the hell out!
Col:
Now THAT ... was funny!
You hate that this is a majority white/christian nation?
Ha, better check with Pat Buchanan, your majority is getting smaller.
Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology, And Greed Are Tearing America Apart (Thomas Dunne Books, November 2007), in which he writes that America is "on a path to national suicide" and later asks: "How is America committing suicide?" answering: "Every way a nation can." He proceeds to claim that "[t]he American majority is not reproducing itself. ...
The real question: Why didn't we have a problem pumping out babies before the liberal culture started swooping over this country, meaning pre-1960s?
The birth rate in this nation began dropping as more and more people entered the middle class. The drop off in the US began in 1961, the end year of the baby boomers. In the post WWII era, many returning vets were able to go to college on the GI Bill, often being the first in their families to ever do so. Up until then, college educations had largely been restricted to the children of wealth. Education was mostly a means by which elites were able to rub shoulders with each other and make business and social contacts that would benefit them for the rest of their lives. Hence the existence of the 'Gentleman's C'.
Rising educational rates ALWAYS result in plummeting birth rates. This has proven true in ALL cultures, ethnicities, and nationalities. This has also shown itself to be true here in America.
So, in a way you're absolutely right. Liberal policies like the GI Bill and the rapid expansion of building colleges and universities helped people who had largely been impoverished and lacking in advanced education to move up in the world. It was government intrusion into the market place.
I'm sure that you see this as another example of liberal Democrats engaging in class warfare against those that God and the Market had justly rewarded with generational wealth.
"I'm sure that you see this as another example of liberal Democrats engaging in class warfare..." - Not exactly, I see it more as traditional conservative values being significantly more pro-family; while progressive/liberal values do not put as much emphasis on the family.
Your link to education and birthrate is interesting, I don't think it is the main factor in birth rate, and you didn't even provide one study to back it up.
The real question: Why didn't we have a problem pumping out babies before the liberal culture started swooping over this country, meaning pre-1960s?
In 1960 the female birth control pill was first tested and approved by the FDA and made available for consumer use.
In 1965 the US Supreme Court overturned the "Comstock Laws" which made many forms of birth control illegal.
You think these two crazy liberal attacks on the culture might have had something to do with it?
And why is it bad for whites to be a minority?
Acceptance of divorce is a liberal value?
Ummm.... http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/14/weekinreview/14pamb.html?ex=1258174800&%2338;en=4f927c5f27fb9966&%2338;ei=5090
Uhhh......
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=10961
but... In 2004, the state with the highest reported divorce rate was Nevada, at 6.4 (per 1,000). Arkansas was a close second, with a divorce rate of 6.3, followed by Wyoming at 5.3. The District of Columbia had the lowest reported divorce rate, at 1.7, followed by Massachusetts at 2.2 and Pennsylvania at 2.5. (Figures were not complete for California, Georgia, Hawaii, Indiana, Louisiana, or Oklahoma.)
Knew I could count on one of you to prove my point.
We are a great nation not because of the ambitions of the radical Republican minority, but because of the great liberal majority of citizens. We of the liberal mind set are in synch with the majority. Americans want healthcare for all, Americans want clean energy, a green economy and strong environmental protections. Americans want out of Iraq.
Sorry, but conservatives have betrayed America with their tax favors for the wealthy and their for profit, privatization of the commons. And they have betrayed us by breaking our military in an endless occupation. Enough is enough.
"Americans want healthcare for all" - No, leaches want free healthcare. Something for nothing. My oh my...how did humans evolve over time without free healthcare? I'd wager to say that most Americans don't want a smaller paycheck so some other fool can get free healthcare. By the way...go over to England...you can get in line for a dentist appointment....you'll only have to wait 2 YEARS!
"Americans want clean energy" - yeah, a good conservative would want this too, which is why republicans like Bush are not good for anyone. Nuclear Power...lets take a hint from France on this one.
"a green economy" - what is this? An economy that will be bankrupted by Al Gore and his quickly fading fantasies of global warming?
"and strong environmental protections" - I'd also wager that the hunters, trappers, and fishers of America have done more for wildlife conservation than any wasteful government programs/agencies will do.
"Americans want out of Iraq." - This is very true. A real commander in chief should be able to smash an insurgent resistance (with no technology/advanced weapons) within 30 days. Republicans and Democrats have failed us here, and members of both parties are making a lot of money off this war, its disgusting.
John, you get funnier by the day. By your , logi...., no I can't use that word.
But your theory would imply that we should have ended the War in Vietnam in 30 days.
An insurgency needs only determination to thrive until the occupying nation loses it's will to continue.
I was born in rural southern Ohio and I have witnessed the betrayal the Party of Big Business has inflicted on salt of the earth working people. That is why I will never vote Republican and why I take every opportuntiy to tell people about liberal values, the greater good and populism.
On the elctoral map:
Besides ignoring the blue tide of 2006, you seem to believe that just because the electoral map was pretty red in 2004 that it will remain so in 2008 and beyond. In short, you assume voting habits don't change. We'll see.
On healhtcare:
In fact two-thirds of Americans say they would pay higher taxes if it meant healthcare for all. We're hard working taxpayers who realize that when even one of us vulnerable, we're all vulnerable.
On France:
Right on.
On wildlife conservation:
Tell that to Teddy Roosevelt or even Nixon. The plain truth is that government is effective when run by those who respect it and respect we the people who own it.
On Iraq:
So you admit that justifications for the Republican policy of pre-emptive invasion were lies?
Have fun misrepresenting my words and struggling to restrain yourself from calling me a socialist.
"and strong environmental protections" - I'd also wager that the hunters, trappers, and fishers of America have done more for wildlife conservation than any wasteful government programs/agencies will do.
I will take that wager for as much money as you're willing to put up. I'll get a second mortgage to cover that wager. Many hunters and fishermen are conservationists (forget trappers), and I know they have to buy those stamps, but if you think hunters and fishermen are monitoring waste streams and preventing heavy metals in our water supply, and forcing the cleanup of former hazardous waste dumps, you're insane. As much as you may not like it with your small gov't, unrestricted capitalism philosophy, the only thing that is keeping us safe and protecting our environment to any effective degree is strong government regulation.
JOHN: You say, "Have you ever been outside a big city? Have you ever looked at a map of voting results by county?...it's not very blue."
RESPONSE: What are you saying here? A square mile in New York City may hold a MILLION residents, people who vote.
A square mile in Montana might hold a rancher and his wife.
A map that shows voting results by county is about DIRT, not people. Expanses of real estate, not human beings.
Is THAT your point, that we should be more impressed with DIRT than people? It MUST be, otherwise your comment makes no sense at all.
Exactly. I do not understand how progressive liberals in this country always talk about being global, diverse, and how we need to "get with the times" over here. Do they just ignore the negative results of socialized healthcare in countries that have it? Do they not see the hatred and anti-free speech sentiment the radical muslims have brought into many European nations (as a result of ultra-liberal tolerance of everything)? Do they not see how strong nationalism and fierce competition strengthens nations (like Russia and China)...and is reason for America to regain those qualities? Do they not understand that when we support every lifestyle and culture as being equal to (if not better than) the traditional American culture, it degrades our sovereignty?
I just cannot figure out why progressive liberals close their eyes to the fact that their would-be policies here in America have already been tried and have failed in other places around the world. This is why I will never understand what exactly the progressives hope to achieve here.
It is fascinating how deep the self-disillusionment runs amongst progressives, I daresay that they will never cease to amaze. These European libs are those i despise the most, they would bend backwards for the Muslim and minority, they have no pride in their heritage and so welcome the unstemmed tides of third-world detritus into their lands. It will take a few more dead film directors until the euros realize that traditional Muslims actually oppress their women. it will take more political bloodshed to realize that Muslims do not tolerate diversity unlike their blinded European benefactors.
Strong nationalism is indeed what often determines whether an empire will survive or fall into decadence and decay. They think that sovereignty is forfeit in the great Utopian plan of open borders and a global commune. Like the communists, they all hope that they will do something better, but i can tell you that the progressive is very shortsighted, they cannot see past their own ideology to imagine its effect on America.
Finfarin,
You are a Neo Nazi, aren't you? How do you feel about Hitler?
How can anyone defend this guy? His views are psychotic. Hillary and Obama both are both more educated and experienced than quite a few presidents we've had. But I can see how they might not be as qualified as a B movie actor with alzheimers.
FASCISTS and their enablers throughout history have in common a few defining characteristics. L. Britt compiled this “checklist” to help identify would-be FASCISTS, tyrants and totalitarians, by their expressed goals.
Do we have any FASCISTS currently in office?
Or as posters on this site?
1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.
2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.
3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause.
4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. A controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.
9. Power of corporations protected.
10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated.
11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
>>I think that those days of white dominion were grand old times, its what could be the golden age of white civilization.
Yes, their was a dictator in Europe in the 30's and 40's who thought like this. How did that turn out?
Affirmative action in itself is an utterly failed program that is simply a reflection of white liberal guilt. Affirmative action is in essence something that tells minorities they can "be included in American institutions without in fact achieving the same level of excellence as whites." Do other non-western countries have such a program? i think not. If minority fellow of lower ability is in power in our economy, he is incomparable to other country's' economy leaders that are placed with the idea of putting the absolute BEST at the forefront.
Do any of you think that if whites regress developmentally and are unable to perform as highly as other minorities you would back the institution of white affirmative action? Those of you who say yes are firm believers of your ideology, those of you who say no are just guilty for past white "racism."
Frederick douglas once wrote that "…if the negro cannot stand on his own legs, let him fall also. All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!" this passage holds all that i believe about the subject.
Your entire argument is based on the idea that blacks are inferior. Affirmative action is not based on the idea that they're less capable, it's because they have a social and economic disadvantage. Remember that whole "slavery" thing we had here? Not exactly comparable to Europe.
"All I ask is, give him a chance to stand on his own legs!"
So Frederick Douglass would have opposed affirmative action? Hilarious. It seems a little more likely that he would have said that's part of giving black people a chance.
"Your entire argument is based on the idea that blacks are inferior." - It's clearly not. It is based on the fact that they are equal and instead of providing a social program to place them in jobs, they should work hard to acheive success and employment as any equal citizen should, not just be admitted because of their skin color or gender.
"Remember that whole "slavery" thing we had here?" Remember how not one living white every owned a slave, and not one living black ever experienced it? And to even mention that Europe never dealt with slavery is laughable.
"It seems a little more likely that he would have said that's part of giving black people a chance." - Did I miss something? Last time I checked, Blacks can go to the same schools as whites, they can apply for the same financial aid and scholarships as whites, they can apply for the same jobs, they can work just as hard. Please give me some area where blacks do not have the same chance of doing something that a white person would have.
And all the information is out there. A quick Google search will prove what I'm saying. But I'm sure you'll find a way to relate this to the superiority of white intellect and the lack of morals of the African Americans. LOL. I feel for you. As I posted on another thread to you - your breed of ignorance is dying. Come on over. We liberals aren't nearly as bad as you make us out to be. LOL.
"Why do you think so many parents are going to privatized education? Because the public school system has failed." - So, ask yourself: when did the public school system start to fail? Seems like it was working fine up through the 50's and up until the "white flight." Is it an ugly fact that public school systems have taken a sharp turn downward since black students started utilizing them? For sure. Do we have to completely ignore that obvious correlation in an effort not to offend anybody? Go ahead, but don't letcure conservatives about not "living in the real world."
Is it an ugly fact that public school systems have taken a sharp turn downward since black students started utilizing them? For sure. Do we have to completely ignore that obvious correlation in an effort not to offend anybody? Go ahead, but don't letcure conservatives about not "living in the real world."
Whodathunkit Black children, 5 years old bringing down the public school system. Oh wait, maybe the blame belongs to the 6 year old or maybe it was those 7 year old or maybe......
John you beat me to it on many points. Some people would avoid and ignore such uncomfortable truths, but intellectual honesty is rare these days. This is why equal segregation could be a viable idea, neither race will drag the other down in educational standards. Public school standards are lowered as the students with lower performance levels often typified by race slow the class down and lower standards. I have experienced this myself in my student career, the idiot slows the pace while the instructor stops to explain the simple concept.
Idiot is a word flung by idiots. Everybody learns at their own particular pace in their own particular way, it's a matter of the way they interact with their reality. This one size fits all concept of teaching and learning utterly ignores the diverse ways the human brain receives and synthesizes knowledge
However, you unknowingly make a good argument for more teachers and smaller classrooms.
I think that my time is better used in furthering my own self interest, call me selfish. if one is slower in uptake it used to be that they would have to let it pass if it was unimportant and figure it out on their own afterwards, by whatever means.
Idiot is a word used to describe someone slow to comprehend, other words being dolt, imbecile, and (Solon's favorite) moron.
i agree that different people learn at a different pace, and then there are those that are just plain stupid. I think that there should be an expansion of programs that separate the slow form the quick. i agree that we should take on a more Socratic form of teaching, but this does not have to be expensive and it does not have to be less educational. My personal belief is that when we slowly yet ardently raise standards students will adapt and their minds will learn more, the Japanese are certainly comfortable with their longer school year & hours as well as a faster learning program.
I certainly agree that we can have more teachers and bigger classrooms and that twould be beneficial, but again it does not have to come at a large price.
First, I don't teach, I'm an administrator...actually, due to the size of the system, you could call me a bureaucrat (which is the main reason I beleive big government is a waste of resources and fails the people more often than not). I think we are referring to economic disadvantage from two different viewpoints...you seem to apply it to school funding in inner-city areas. I'm simply applying it to the individual child's economic status, which is why I say: you dont have to be rich to be smart or get a passing grade. Now, if the poor child can't even get his hands on a book at school, I agree with you that that is a problem. At the same time, it demonstrates the failure of big government to provide a basic service. Perhaps a good starting point to fix this problem would be to check the immigration status of children when they enroll at school, and stop giving free education to illegals. With many school districts spending over $10,000 for educating 1 child, wouldn't you agree that the millions of illegals using our schools are wrongly stealing dollars away from disadvantaged American students?
Fin's argument isn't based on black inferiority? Let's review.
"Affirmative action is in essence something that tells minorities they can "be included in American institutions without in fact achieving the same level of excellence as whites.""
Black people don't achieve white "excellence". Check.
"Do other non-western countries have such a program? i think not. If minority fellow of lower ability is in power in our economy, he is incomparable to other country's' economy leaders that are placed with the idea of putting the absolute BEST at the forefront."
Minority fellows are not the best, so they shouldn't be at the forefront. Check.
"Do any of you think that if whites regress developmentally and are unable to perform as highly as other minorities you would back the institution of white affirmative action?"
Here's the key section. If Fin isn't saying blacks are inferior, then what the hell is the argument here? What would whites developmental standards or performance have to do with anything?
Don't defend the racist. It's not up for debate, he's posted enough about white supremacy and race war that it's beyond dispute at this point.
As for slavery in Europe, when was that? In the 15th century? That's why it's not comparable to something as recent as 19th century slavery here. And whether the opportunities are there for everyone, systemic racism that takes hold in poor areas with more violent atmosphere and inferior education makes for less opportunities for those growing up there.
Brabanto, some minorities are actually not at the same level of performance compared to whites, this is why when they are taken over those more qualified (affirmative action) they often are not as capable, while countries with no such programs put the BEST that they have in their leadership positions.
I see the point in which we differ, you think that minorities are the same in performance as whites, they are just not given the opportunities whites have. I disagree and the data warrants my conclusion that there is variation in performance levels among races.
who is the arbiter of what is up for debate and what is incontestable? if you find my opinions wrong ten attempt refutation rather than dismissal.
>>I disagree and the data warrants my conclusion that there is variation in performance levels among races.
Finfarin is a Neo Nazi. I mean that literally. He thinks the white race is superior, and he hoping for a "bloody political" change that will bring victory to a "hard right" that is gaining strength in Eastern Europt. There is no reasoning with such lunacy. Finfarin, how do you feel about Hitler?
So, you quote Fin saying that the data warrants his conclusion, and instead of trying to prove him wrong by simply showing data that would support whatever viewpoint you have, you response by going on the neo-nazi attack.
By doing this, you only prove to everyone here that you cannot (or are to lazy to) refute his claims with anything that would prove his claims incorrect.
Hey, it's John who defended Savage's racist remarks the other day, and then denied doing so!
Do you really think I have to refute Finfarin's belief that minorities are inferior to whites?
And yes, Finfarrin is *literally* a Neo Nazi. I'm not just using labels here. He thinks whites are superior, thinks we should have segregation, thinks slavery is a viable economic system, thinks white supremacy marked the height of civilization, and thinks the re-surgence of the hard-right in Europe, which he said defines itself by being race conscious, and which will have to assert itself through violence, is a good thing. He is literally a Neo Nazi. Do I really need to cut and copy his posts?
Actually i am not and do not consider myself a neonazi, i would prefer if you would desist from that inaccurate description. i would call myself only a white nationalist, to you this may mean white supremacist but i tend to make a distinction between the two.
About a possible bloody political change in western Europe upon the return of the nationalistic hard right I am only stating a possibility in future politics. Political history follows certain trends, when a single ideology has been in control for to long to the detriment of the country you will see a rise in an opposing political faction. So it was with Hitler, he was a reactionary hard right nationalist force arisen in the face of the liberal failures of the Wiemar republic. Hitler was someone with his heart in the right place, but his methods extreme and his person rather mad. I oppose his anti-Semitic genocide and his mass murdering in general. this man was but a man of history corrupted by power and consumed by his hate Certain characteristics we see in the fellow from Iran). He was ultimately a reactionary force that would never have arisen if not the excesses of the Wiemar.
You're conflating potential and performance. From my experience, black people are just as capable.
Let's simplify it. Do you believe that people have the same aptitude, that given identical circumstances they would perform equally? If yes, then I don't see your problem with affirmative action. If you believe that they can perform as well if given the same environment, opportunities and education, then there's no reason to deny them what they deserve. Unless you just don't like the color of their skin and don't want them entering your society, of course.
If no, if it's a matter of blacks being developmentally inferior (which is not the same as education), then you are a racist. You would believe white people are inherently superior.
Your status as a racist is beyond dispute. Anyone who talks about how white supremacists get a bad rap and race war and "race traitors" has defined himself.
He (rather, both of us) fundamentally disagree with affirmative action (paired with diversity requirements) because of this simple reality: Let's say I am applying for a particular job and I am the most qualified candidate. Instead of getting the job, they hire the minority who has less qualifications than me, but the right skin color or gender. That's not right in any circumstance. This is the single, simple reason we disagree with the notion of affirmative action and forced diversity. It clearly has nothing to do with "hating" people of other races, it has everything to do with unfair treatment of qualified job candidates.
If any of you want to label us as racists, nazis, or supremicists for holding the belief that the most qualified candidate should be the one getting the job, ALWAYS, that's your problem to deal with, not ours.
Fin being a white supremacist is separate from this. He's established himself as that some time ago. You really don't want to expend a lot of energy pursuing this.
Let's say it's "wrong" or "unfair" for the sake of argument. Slavery and systemic racism are social wrongs. They are undeniably unfair. Bearing that in mind, I think a counterbalance to that is perfectly acceptable. Make the effort to level the playing field, and then you won't have to worry about it any longer.
I care about social justice. If you don't, that's your problem.
I can listen to the woes and social injustices that have occured in the past (none of which are my fault, or the current generations fault), and at the end of the day, I'm still not going to buy into affirmative action. Today, if I have the same qualifications as a black man, and apply for the same job; I will be angry and see it as unfair if the black man was hired because the company was forced to do so through affirmative action. Now, if the black man was hired just because the company liked him more, and affirmative action played no role whatsoever, I'd shake the man's hand and congratulate him on getting the job.
I can't speak for Fin, but I'm almost positive he would have the same reactions, perhaps he will respond, and we'll see.
All of you poster-boys for Affirmative Action: you clearly have never worked in an environment where the majority of the employees are affirmative action hires, or politically-correct "forced diversity" hires. A lot of people here talk about us conservatives not living in the real world...that's such nonsense. I live and work in the real world as it exists today. It is really pathetic to sit there and look at the overall acheivement gaps in the workplace and then try to completely ignore that it is typically the white man performing at a higher level than the minority. There are certainly tons of minorities that are smarter and work at a higher level than me....but those aren't the type of minority that need to utilize affirmative action.
So you've abandoned your ludicrous defense of the white supremacist? Excellent decision on your part.
I've worked with black people, and have found them to be equal to white people. I've seen people who are lazy, hardworking, stupid and smart in equal proportions.
It's a social remedy for systemic racism, the remnants of slavery. As I said above, it's harder for people from poor environments to break out of that, and affirmative action helps to push people into higher classes. If you believe that people are born with equal capacity, then in the long run it won't be a problem, right? Once there is adequate representation in the middle and upper classes, then there won't be any need for the help. Seems like a good cause to me.
And if you don't believe that minorities have the same capacity as white people, then I understand why you defended Finarfin.
I live and work in the real world as it exists today. It is really pathetic to sit there and look at the overall acheivement gaps in the workplace and then try to completely ignore that it is typically the white man performing at a higher level than the minority.
Awhhhh sounds like you really miss the days where you got a job simply because you were white, no experience needed. Too bad you didn't apply for Dir. of FEMA BEFORE Brownie. Or maybe you could have had the job as Sec. of Veteran Affairs BEFORE Jim Nicholson. Damn, you could have been President BEFORE Junior. Just think, all those jobs, no higher performance level required by the white man.
JOHN says, "Did I miss something?"
RESPONSE; Apparently, you've missed EVERYTHING.
JOHN says, "Last time I checked, Blacks can go to the same schools as whites,"
RESPONSE: Then you've "checked" since Brown v Board of Education, tremendous struggles at integration, protests and ugly (and violent) confrontations which GRADUALLY led to integration being accepted in MOST instances. Even today, inflammatory legal challenges are taking place, over "Robin Hood" propositions to equalize funding for schools. Every CHANGE had to be FORCED, by law and often by ARMS, to make integration happen.
JOHN says, "...they can apply for the same financial aid and scholarships as whites ..."
RESPONSE: Partially true, but ALSO due to hard-fought demands that such programs be integrated (and 100 YEARS later than the ratification of the 14th Amendment, which made it unconstitutional to deny "equal protection under the laws." Change was SLOW ... spanning many generations ... and ultimately acceptance had to be ENFORCED.
JOHN says, "... they can apply for the same jobs ..."
RESPONSE: Thanks to Affirmative Action, TRUE. BEFORE AA, it was decidedly NOT true. So you're making a weird argument: You state how things ARE, without acknowledging that things ARE the way they ARE as a RESULT of the laws and programs that you claim are unnecessary and bad. Very wierd indeed.
JOHN challenges, "Please give me some area where blacks do not have the same chance of doing something that a white person would have."
RESPONSE: Offhand, I'd say inheriting the J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, or Walton family fortunes.
"RESPONSE: Offhand, I'd say inheriting the J.P. Morgan, Rockefeller, or Walton family fortunes."
Great, and whitey doesn't have a chance at inheriting the P. Diddy family fortune, or the Oprah Winfrey family fortune. So, what's your point? Because the black man can't inherit the white man's fortune, we're not equal?
Brabanto, Affirmative action is based on the fact that they have social and economic "disadvantages" that make them less capable. you clearly just want to insert my "white supremacism" into the debate. European slavery lasted much longer than black slavery, and although more recent it has still too great an effect on the socioeconomic standing of blacks.
Of course Douglas would have opposed AA, it is incredible that you CANNOT see this when it is so obvious! SO supporting them, giving them a crutch by "giving them a chance" is letting the Negro stand on his own?!? You are certainly delusional beyond my imagination, It's people like you that decide what is best for the black man that are his enemy.
Let's go over this again:
"Do any of you think that if whites regress developmentally and are unable to perform as highly as other minorities you would back the institution of white affirmative action?"
So if your argument is about social disadvantages, why are you turning to whites regressing developmentally in order to bolster your point? Why wouldn't you say something like "if whites became socially disadvantaged..."? Are you pleading stupidity, or what?
Of course slavery lasted longer in Europe, there's a longer history there. There wasn't even settlement in America until the 17th century. You just can't compare racial atmospheres between the two, because the histories are so different.
As for Douglass, give me a break. I'm supposed to believe that he thought that black people should have to overcome societal disadvantage, an uneven playing field, otherwise they should fall? If you can find something from him that suggests that putting blacks and whites on equal footing is giving a "crutch" to black people, I'd like to see that. This sounds like the "MLK opposed affirmative action because he said people should be judged by the content of their characters" argument, ignoring the multiple statements he made supporting affirmative action. You're taking a comment and attributing meanings that just aren't there.
That should be it, right there. What he just said says that Obama could only get the job because he is a black man filling quotas and not on the basis of his talents, skills, intelligence, etc.
I will never buy a product from one of the advertisers on Savage's show. He has the 3rd rated program in the country and he can get away with saying stuff like this. And Don Imus says something stupid and is buried. How is this not worse?
I see.. because he's black, it's appearantly affirmative action. It's not like a real election.. the black guy doesn't stand a chance in such a white politicial world and people are voting for him because a black man should have a chance.
STUPID. Talk about a shallow view..
It always amazes when people can so easily ignore the racial inequality that still exists and is being passed on with every generation. But hey who cares that their are children in America who are living in such a state of poverty that they might as well be in a third world country. This is America they should get a hold of their bootstraps and pull themselves up. Except they cant afford the boots those straps are attached to. But hey they can just apply for all those college scolarships that are open to everyone. Except the inner city school they went to didn't have enough books for each student to have one to take home to study so they fell behind. And their single parent had to work to jobs so they could have a place to live and food to eat so they weren't able to be there to make sure that they did their homework or didnt play hookie from school half the time. Since the child was behind in their work they should have had to attend summer school to catch up, but the funding for the summer program never came so they had to cancel it. Then even though the child wasn't ready for the next grade they received a social promotion because they just didnt have the classroom space to hold them back.
But hey this america where everyone has an equal chance to succeed....
John
Before the 1940's the majority of American families were "extended families", not "nuclear fa,ilies". Extended families have several generations living together. And as it stands now only roughly a 25% of Americans are part of what is considered a "nuclear family."
See it real, This man connerly you call anti-negro is only someone willing to see what other blacks ignore in their self-delusionment. He is one of those that will not blind himself to the foibles of his race, and i salute him for using his logic rather than his feelings.
finarfin
Finarfin, your racist saluting of "Con Man" Connerly is based on the fact that Connerly hates himself for being a black man, that he hates other black people, and that Connerly knowingly associates himself with white supremacist groups like the KKK and the upper class Council of Concervative Citizens. If you define these acts as logical and worthy of being saluted, those facts represent monumental INDICTMENTS against both you and Con Man Connerly. Black Talk radio and Black America are judging Connerly by the NEGATIVE content of his character, and by the racist white supremacist company that he keeps and seeks.
Connerly's REAL problem is that he can't stand the fact that he's a black man, and he HATES other black people because they remind him of what he is, and what he always will be, no matter how many anti-black activities he engages in. His marriage to a white woman was a huge part of his hating of his own race.
Let's note that thet con man continues to refuse to appear on black talk radio shows that are hosted by black talk radio hosts like "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com and Clifford Kelley and Salim Muwakill of Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com to spout his anti-black racist white supremacist bile. Joe Madison has said several times that Connerly won't come on his show because Madison has questions for him that Connerly REFUSES to answer. One question being that Connerly is also a self-hating anti-black hypocrite, since early in his life, Connerly accepted contracts for his business through the very same affirmative action programs that he now works against. No surprise that Connerly and his racist white supremacist allies will deny that Madison has even sent him an invitiation to appear on his show. Another black commentator, Tavis Smiley, has correctly referred to Connerly as sinister.
Another black talk radio host, Ambrose I. Lane Senior, correctly blasted Connerly as "The Colored Man who opposes affirmative action."
Quoting the words of "The Black Eagle" Joe Madison http://www.joemadison.com
John and Fin are more than just racists, they're both white supremacists that have been culturally conditioned to see white people as superior and to see all blacks as inferior, including the anti-black black conservative racist white supremacists that rubber stamp and validate their racism and white supremacy, which is what the self-hating anti-black Negro conservatives like "Con Man" Connerly and Shelby "I hate black people and I hate the fact that I'm a black man" Steele, among others.
Fin and John and other racist white supremacists like them undervalue the worth and charater of black people, they underestimate the achievements of black people, they marginalize black people, just for the fact that they are black people. Their white supremacist conditioning is the core of their racist hatred for blacks.
So I guess what Savage is saying is that he will plan to vote for the white male, no matter who he is, or whether he is qualified for the job or not. Sounds like quota hiring to me - a 100% white male presidency.
You just said all of it, Brains.
Note that Savage and Racist John and Racist Fin have ZERO problem with the white male privilege system, the same system that got the unqualified C Student Bush into Yale when he didn't deserve to be admitted.
Nor do John and Fin and other right wing conservative racist white supremacists have any issue with unqualified rich white male getting school admissions, jobs, contracts, bank loans, and/or tables in restaurants just because they are white males. In fact, these racist white conservatives believe 1000% in the white male entitlement system/white male entitlement syndrome.
Right and the smut mouthed guy has no connection with regular Americans. he is a foul mouthed bigot and he surely shows that this go round. What a racist.
Not only is Savage/Weiner a foul motuhed racist white supremacist, his listeners are als foul motuhed racist white supremacists who have the sociopathic condition of being under the white male entitlement syndrome.
I challenge Savage to call in to the national black talk radio network XM 169/THE POWER and/or on Chicago's black talk radio station WVON-AM 1690 http://www.wvon.com and repeat this racist white supremacist bantor or some variation therof. This challenge also goes out to Racist John, Racist Fin, and the other racist white supremacist conservatives and/or the anti-black black conservative racist white supremacists to try repeating their racist white supremacist nonsense on any black talk radio station.