DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on October 03, 2014, 04:04:31 PM
-
http://madworldnews.com/california-amnesty-american/
-
Well
It really depend which definition were talking about. On my end it seems racist means not black.
-
:La Raza is not a racist group. It is a Mexican pride group more like the NAACP. Mexico is a country that was bedeviled by actual racism for many years. The Whites owned almost everything and the Mestizos were seen as savages. The Whites and the Church delivered the nation to the French under Napoleon III in 1862, and they put an Austrian on the throne as Emperor Maximilian I. When the US Civil War ended in 1865, the cost of weapons plummetted and the constitutional president, Benito Juarez, a Zapotec Indian from Oaxaca, defeated Maximillian, and he was executed in 1867 in Queretaro .
The philosophy behind the La Raza movement came from Mexican thinker Jose Vasconcelos. It is incorporated in the motto of the National Autonumous University of Mexico, the UNAM. Por mi raza hablará el espíritu. "Through my people the spirit will speak." La raza in Mexico refers to the Mexican people, regardless of race.
-
:La Raza is not a racist group. It is a Mexican pride group more like the NAACP.
Actually, the current manifstation of the NAACP is absoutely a racist group. Was once a well intentioned organization, has since mutated. Racism is pushing your race above others, deniegrating other races in the process, the white race in particular, vs MLK's vision that all races be treated equally & respectfully. That's precisely what many of the folks connected with the NAACP subscribe to
-
SIRS.....if a national organization called "The National Association for the Advancement of White People" existed would it be called racist?
-
If Black people had owned White slaves for 200 years and been lynching White folks for the past 100 years, then, no, the National Association for the Advancement of White People should NOT be considered racist.
However, such is not the case.
There is NOT a state of equality between Blacks and Whites in this country. For every dollar a White family has, a Black family has one dime.
That is a fact. This is a materialistic country with a consumer economy, so this is of overwhelming importance.
When both have a dollar, both have a dime, or both have fifty cents, then your argument will not be something said by an incredibly stupid and unimaginative person.
Your ignorance of your native country, and the inability of either if you clowns to actually put yourselves in someone else's shoes is fooking amazing. That is why I do not take either of you seriously.
To do so would be to equate The Old Man and the Sea with the stories of Pud, the fat kid in the toons that came with Double Bubble Bubble Gum, or perhape a Jack Chick Comic.
-
SIRS.....if a national organization called "The National Association for the Advancement of White People" existed would it be called racist?
100% Absolutely
-
I think that anyone can have a bad attitude.
Is racism necessarily bad?
If it is than it isn't a good attitude for anyone to have.
If it is good for geese but not ganders , we will just all be geese and point at the ganders that no one will admit to being.
It is totally possible to justify all sorts of wrong on the basis of previous wrong.
Since individual minorities have entered to the roles of the top earners and highest seats of power , all of the previously questionable justification of "reverse" racism have become obsolete.
-
I think that anyone can have a bad attitude.
Is racism necessarily bad?
It is when you're faulting someone else merely because of their skin color......or the skin color of someone long since dead. You can fault people's actions and choices, but skin color is not a choice.
And reverse racism is just as bad, regardless of the upside-down justification that its ok, because racist acts were done to their ancesters before. That ever famous cliche', 2 wrongs, don't make a right, fits in nicely here
-
Since individual minorities have entered to the roles of the top earners and highest seats of power , all of the previously questionable justification of "reverse" racism have become obsolete.
============================================================================
When this is proportional to their percentage in the population, this might be true.
But such is not even close to being the case, so this is a bogus statement.
-
Since individual minorities have entered to the roles of the top earners and highest seats of power , all of the previously questionable justification of "reverse" racism have become obsolete.
============================================================================
When this is proportional to their percentage in the population, this might be true.
But such is not even close to being the case, so this is a bogus statement.
I refuse to accept that it cannot be fixed at all.
-
Since individual minorities have entered to the roles of the top earners and highest seats of power , all of the previously questionable justification of "reverse" racism have become obsolete.
============================================================================
When this is proportional to their percentage in the population, this might be true.
But such is not even close to being the case, so this is a bogus statement.
Racism is racism, be it white on black, black on white, or pick a color on another color. Its wrong in any form, and no amount of trying to claim it happened badly 1 way back then makes it ok now the other way, makes it ok in any way.
It has nothing to do with proportion....racism is racism, whether its thousands of white against black back then or 1 case of black against white now. What's bogus is to try and justify it as being ok now, because it happenend worse before in the other direction.
Racism is Racism
-
And you understand nothing about it and how it dwells within your very core.
-
Given I actually have a grasp of the english language, the definition of words, and the actions of others, I understand it completely. My "core" is irrelevant
-
And you understand nothing about it and how it dwells within your very core.
Ah, the pot calls the kettle black.
-
;)
-
Within the warp[ed tiny mind of sirs there dwells a wee little being in full Klan regalia.
-
Within the warp[ed tiny mind of sirs there dwells a wee little being in full Klan regalia.
Are you without a dark side?
How does your racism manifest itself?
-
Get serious.
-
Don't sweat-it Plane.....folks on the left have a knee jerk response to calling anyone on the right racist, in some form, when they dare talk about respect for all races equally. Makes you wonder what they'd call MLK, and his extreme vision of judging others by the content of their character vs fixated on their skin color. An Uncle Martin?
-
Get serious.
I totally am.
Didn't you just state that a racist might not realize how much he is racist?
So your racism might be more evident to others than to yourself.
If that is how it works.
-
Yeah, sure.
Pat yourselves on the back, all us liberals make frequent reference to Uncle Martin.
Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Bill and so did Barry Goldwater.
-
So did most of the Democratic party. The FACT is that it wouldn't have passed without the majority Republican support/vote
-
Yeah, sure.
Pat yourselves on the back, all us liberals make frequent reference to Uncle Martin.
Reagan opposed the Civil Rights Bill and so did Barry Goldwater.
Now really is this fair?
Goldwater and Reagan both supported an earlier civil rights bill.
The one Goldwater liked was mainly different in that it would have been strong in northern states as well as southern.
-
It is indeed really fair.
The Civil Rights Bill was the result of the genius of LBJ almost entirely. LBJ was not a Republican, either.
-
lBJ?
True he passed the most civil rights bills but he didn't do it for minorities at all. Those bills are mainly to help his fellow farmers . People forget a certain kind of class system also exist in america. Lets just say the term white privilege doesn't apply to a large percent of white folks
-
Well concluded, Kimba.
And for an additional reminder, as the professor tries to paint the GOP as the supposed racist party:
Vote totals[edit]
Totals are in "Yea–Nay" format:
The original House version: 290–130 (69–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71–29 (71–29%).
The Senate version: 73–27 (73–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289–126 (70–30%).
By party[edit]
The original House version:[20]
Democratic Party: 152–96 (61–39%)
Republican Party: 138–34 (80–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:[21]
Democratic Party: 44–23 (66–34%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version:[20]
Democratic Party: 46–21 (69–31%)
Republican Party: 27–6 (82–18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[20]
Democratic Party: 153–91 (63–37%)
Republican Party: 136–35 (80–20%)
As factually unrefuted, that a greater % of Republicans voted for the '64 Civil Rights Bill, than did Democrats. If it weren't for the GOP, the Bill may have never passed a Democrat Fillibuster
-
Were it not for LBJ, it would never have been voted on.
It took LBJ far more guts to support this than some Republican from Idaho
-
Sure it would have......whoever the President was. It just happened to be LBJ. Point and FACT remains, more Republicans supported Civil Rights than your precious Democrats. Al Gore's dad immediately comes to mind
-
Were it not for LBJ, it would never have been voted on.
It took LBJ far more guts to support this than some Republican from Idaho
How can you say it took more guts for a Democrat to do this ?
Why?
Were the Republicans generally more in favor of civil rights at the time?
-
LBJ knew that the "Solid South" would be a thing of the past after Blacks actually got the right to vote and started voting.
And that is what happened.
The Republicans who voted for this bill had relatively few Blacks in their districts and did not have any reason to believe that they would lose voters as a result of voting for the bill.
-
LBJ knew that the "Solid South" would be a thing of the past after Blacks actually got the right to vote and started voting.
And that is what happened.
This explains Louisiana having a lot of Democratic governors since then but only one slightly brown governor.
So what he predicted is not what happened at all , LBJ was simply wrong about that.
What , did he expect the racists to start supporting their enemy of a century?
-
You make no sense. You seem to be devoid of all knowledge of the political history of this country.
-
LBJ knew that the "Solid South" would be a thing of the past after Blacks actually got the right to vote and started voting.
And that is what happened.
This explains Louisiana having a lot of Democratic governors since then but only one slightly brown governor.
So what he predicted is not what happened at all , LBJ was simply wrong about that.
What , did he expect the racists to start supporting their enemy of a century?
Exactly.......this is the point where the wheels keep coming off the wagon. Republicans supported civil rights in greater numbers, especially in the south, which is where Democrats became known as Dixiecrats. That's an irrefutable fact. In fact, Lincoln largely started the Republican party's goal of abolishing slavery. So, here comes the '64 Civil rights act, and true to form the South, primarily made up of Democrat/Dixiecrat politicians strongly opposed it, led by folks like Al Gore's father, pushed perhaps the longest filibuster in history to thwart the pending legislation. But with 80+% support of the minority Republican party, the filibuster is defeated, and the bill becomes the law of the land
But then we're to believe that the Dixiecrats jumped the Democrat ship and not just joined, but was supposedly embraced by....the party that just helped pass it, by an over 80% margin of support?? Anyone else seeing the fatal flaw in this attempted dot connection?
-
Well actually using historical data to back republican support of civil rights would be invalid. Since i forgot what year the party actually stopped being supportive to minority causes about thirty ,forty years ago. Thats what started the gop racist reputation.
People forget both political parties switched ideologies awhile back. Ex. Conservative democrat was the normal at the beginning. Republicans today cant take credit for lincoln freeing slaves.
-
You'll have to provide some specifics Kimba. Outside of David Duke, who was largely a GOP outcast, who specifically was running around racist circles, while being embraced by the GOP. The GOP of today can absolutely be taking credit for the GOP of yesteryear, with 1 big difference.....many of the established Republicans have embraced a Government to the rescue mentality, where more Government isnt's necessarily a bad thing
But as it relates to some supposed swapping of teams, you'll have to provide some specifics of who and how. Just because conservative Republicans aren't supportive of a larger welfare state or more Federal Government assistance, isn't defacto racist.....its defacto small government as designed by the founders of this country. Do you have some specific examples to share?
-
.... Since i forgot what year the party actually stopped being supportive to minority causes ....
There is a definite reason for this.
-
The specifics is barry goldwater. Around the 1960's is when the shift happened he stated something which changes a largely republican black population to a largely democratic group. If you think about it most minority group if not all by nature are consevative. But if thier is a checklist of what it is to be conservative. All those groups will only be off by a few items and it's because those items that prevents them from joining the gop.
-
I do thing about it, and I disagree, in that most minority group is conservative by nature, especially on social issues. Goldwater isn't enough I'm afraid. We're talking about racism. At least that's what I thought. What exactly did Goldwater do or hang around with that was racist in nature, that was acceptable to the GOP, and conservatives in particular?
-
those social issue is likely the very few boxes not checked on the list I mentioned. we have many example how most people in general are conservative. gays are conservative and has a group called the log cabin party but the GOP is soo unwelcoming they eventually had to shift. prop. 8 was supported by a lot of minority voters. people totally miscalculated how conservative these groups are and simply thought they vote against by default. the only reason these group are not republicans is the GOP will not support those issues that is helpful to those groups.
whether you agree or not goldwater is the turning point
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/07/14/331298996/why-did-black-voters-flee-the-republican-party-in-the-1960s
-
They "fled" because Government was setting themself up as the "go-to" organization for any and all assistance. It had trace to do with race. Conservatives support self sufficiency and limited Government, while embracing charity and personal assistance. Government, led by Democrats and liberal Republicans put the gas peddle to the floor in trying to "help" anyone it could, regardless the circumstances that led to how/why any help is needed in the 1st place. Programs for unwed mothers facilitated more out of wedlock births, just to name one example. Increasing unemployment benefits, yet another
Blacks left the GOP not because of any racial twist, but because the left began championing the need for more Government services, which in turn made it ok for worse and worse decision making and judgements by individuals. As The GOP kept trying to rain in the poor decision making, the left found a gold mine of PR, to lay the claim of how the Republicans don't care about the poor, and in particular poor blacks. Goldwater, had very little to do with it, IMHO
In other words, the GOP allowed Democrats to with the PR battle, despite the fact that there are far more racists in the Democrat ranks. One need only look to the NAACP and folks like LaRaza for a pelethora of examples to that fact.
-
yes. but not exactly counter what I said. the samples you stated are also examples of non-support of these groups which cannot not be ignore to these parties. you did say the GOP allowed it so now they see the rewards of their non-actions
-
Non support of a policy is not defacto non support of a group. That's how the left has been able to shape that debate however, and why they won the PR battle, despite far more overt racist rhetoric found in their ranks, while routinely condemned when coming from a Republican
-
Continue to enjoy your almost total ignorance, sirs.
-
Brilliant rebuttal ::)
-
I don`t doubt racism exist n the democratic party but still the question brought by the pr smear is simply what has the GOP done for those issue dealing with minorities. as I said before most people are largely conservative but those few items on the checklist is what hold them back from joining.
-
See Kimba, this is where you and I apparently differ. It's like the GOP is to be castigated because they dared to follow the letter of the constitution. But because they didn't placate to every possible avenue of assistance, it's supposedly some "fault" of theirs. I want a Federal Government that adheres to its founding. I don't want a Federal Government, or a party for that matter, that perceives every wrong in this world, and must make it right....using the only means they have, our tax dollars. That's what State & local Governments are for. And even then, rarely, if ever fixing the problem, but actually exacerbating it...perhaps even on purpose, with the resulting cries in the need for ever more government services/assistance
This is not a "fault", nor something that the GOP needs to "fix". Better PR is the short term fix, while education is the long term fix. Which is why the Media do the short term work for the Democrats, and Academia does it for them, for the long term. With those 2 stakes already firmly planted for the Democrats, one would wonder how a Republican ever gets elected
-
With those 2 stakes already firmly planted for the Democrats, one would wonder how a Republican ever gets elected
I did state most people are conservative.
understand what your getting but I just pointing out how some don`t agree to it.
-
The GOP is simply the party of the fatcats. There used to be some Republicans who cared about the general public, but now the general public is merely fodder for the corporations, that are allowed to engage in monopolistic practices and to use the US military as its mall cops.
-
The Dems have just as many, if not more "fatcats", and give just as much, if not more to Dem causes. It's current manifestation treats the entire middle class as mere fodder, while they push policy after policy to destroy it, making more and more people beholden to Government services......almost completing their perpetual power & control position. Some states, under the Democratic thumb, have already completed that task
-
Yeah, right.
-
Yeah........right. Glad we got that cleared up 8)
-
Until the GOP start to actually do something for some people they want votes from and not just say democrats are bad. Things will stay the same. Saying get a job hippy is not the kind of help that will work today.
-
And I'm not going to subscribe to a party that to try and "get votes" needs to bribe them with "Look what I can do for you.......with other people's money of course". That line of thinking perpetuates the precise problems we're currently having with run-away Government, wreckless spending of our tax dollars, ringing up exponential debt that gets placed on our Children, and their children's children's children's children
-
Most of the deficits are the result of wars that we did not need to fight, weapons that have never been needed, payments to the widows, orphans and permanently disabled that were the result of useless wars.
-
Being that that claim is pure horse manure, as the supposed reason for "most of the deficit", not to mention pure opinion as to need vs not, there's no need to request some actual support of that claim, .....since there would be none
-
totally saying it`s vote getting and also is flawed enough to cause problems but also in the saying in the breathe it`s also not without merits. it`s does address problems some groups has. the drug gang term "what have you done for me lately should never be ignored . the GOP has paid a great price for it and will continue to pay for it. I stated that term becaused it`s derived from a very undesirable group but that totally does not invalidate the term and it`s a term that should follow the expression ignore "that your own risk".
-
It addresses problems by feeding it more problems...like the perpetual Government to the rescue mentaility. THAT's the biggest problem, IMHO. As a Conservative, that's not how I want my country to function, turning over more and more control of our lives to a centralized government. That's the polar oppopsite of how this country was founded, and more so designed, via our Constitutional boundries
If you want to advocate a similar approach at the state and local levels, I could be swayed to support that effort. We have however, a plethora of examples that demonstrates how bad things can get, if left to the Federal government to deal with every little nuance to our lives that are even remotely challenging
-
Most of the deficits are the result of wars that we did not need to fight, weapons that have never been needed, payments to the widows, orphans and permanently disabled that were the result of useless wars.
No.
We have been spending more on social programs than defense for many years now.
-
I looked it up and got sidetracked. why on earth is veterans benefits separate from military spending. I think that`s why veterans are getting short changed because of this. as somebody who knows many people in the military . budget allocation is a very tricky thing in the military . I`ve often sent food and supplies to friends going on sea because the navy tends often just store enough so toward the end it gets a touch scarce in some supplies.
lets just say it`s not uncommon for our servicemen to buy toilet paper out of thier own pocket often before a trip.
-
Most of the deficits are the result of wars that we did not need to fight, weapons that have never been needed, payments to the widows, orphans and permanently disabled that were the result of useless wars.
No.
We have been spending more on social programs than defense for many years now.
Exactly
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2b/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2011.png)
-
(https://static.nationalpriorities.org/images/fb101/2014/presidents-budget.png)
-
I looked it up and got sidetracked. why on earth is veterans benefits separate from military spending. I think that`s why veterans are getting short changed because of this. as somebody who knows many people in the military . budget allocation is a very tricky thing in the military . I`ve often sent food and supplies to friends going on sea because the navy tends often just store enough so toward the end it gets a touch scarce in some supplies.
lets just say it`s not uncommon for our servicemen to buy toilet paper out of thier own pocket often before a trip.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43574.............
For fiscal year 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) requested about $150 billion to fund the pay and benefits of current and retired members of the military. That amount is more than one-quarter of DoD’s total base budget request (the request for all funding other than for military operations in Afghanistan and related activities)................
There isn't enough money in the world to pay a single person what his death is worth.
The soldier is either working for love , or is in the wrong work.
-
thanks
social security? how is that even on the chart? last time I checked it`s paid from a different box on our paycheck stub. I`m not saying taxes are not paying for it but that`s because the government has been dipping into that. unless that`s how much the government owes social security.
-
The part labelled "Defense Department" does not include payments to the families of dead and disabled soldiers or probably not the VA, either. Past wars are a major expense of our government.
-
Regardless the opinion of "major expense", the FACTS remain that they are not the source for "most of the deficit", as you had claimed
-
The part labelled "Defense Department" does not include payments to the families of dead and disabled soldiers or probably not the VA, either. Past wars are a major expense of our government.
Oh?
I thought it was included.
-
Most of the DEFICIT, not most of the budget, lamebrain.
Payments for wars past are not included within the Defense Dept budget, at t most of there not.
-
So, you're just basing this on the mere opinion of what you deem needed vs not, as t relates to wars. Since that has no factual support, I could say the same thing about all the massive about of waste and abuse with domestic spending.....i.e. Obamination care. It certainly is not needed, and there are a whole host of Government services and bureaucracy that's not needed, thus causing most of the deficit
-
Most of the DEFICIT, not most of the budget, ....
Most of the spending?
-
Total cost minus total revenues equals deficit, if more money is going out than is coming in.
This is not a difficult concept.
-
Good , then since most of the outflow is social programs ,,,,
What remains unclear?
-
thanks
social security? how is that even on the chart? last time I checked it`s paid from a different box on our paycheck stub. I`m not saying taxes are not paying for it but that`s because the government has been dipping into that. unless that`s how much the government owes social security.
As taxes are taken they are spent, taxes taken for Social security are spent with the rest.
Probably a mistake.
-
I did not claim that anything was unclear, did I?
-
So the majority of the deficit can be ascribed to the majority items of the spent budget.
Most of our deficit is due to social programs because that is the majority of the spending.
-
social programs
that's a pretty general title. got a strange feeling if we were to break that down it may not be so simple to say that`s the problem. not all the money goes to transgender cats that needs yarn.
been wanting to say that for 2 years
-
Would you like to narrow it down?
What counts ?
Starting with transgender cats that need yarn.
Hahahahahaha