Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 9:08 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:If Jefferson saw today's Democratic Party, he'd become a Republican.


Absolutely no way. He'd be a libertarian, or he'd be working toward revolution.


Nah, he had more sense than that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 9:12 am

GMTom wrote:
doesn't the State have an obligation to repair the damage?

Shouldn't the State as a whole take responsibility for its misdeeds and attempt to repair some of the damage through positive actions and policies?

NO
The state needed to correct the wrong and make all people equal under the law. The courts handle any illegalities not the state trying to "correct" past wrongs, in their attempts to try and "correct" things, the state had created a reverse discrimination that only created more animosity between races. If you want more positive changes then why not have the state fix the other problems you liberals have spelled out? If they can force anti-discrimination then they can force things like ensuring all movies and television shows MUST have equal numbers of all races in them. Force the NBA to have equal numbers of white players, force music recording companies to stop any negative black stereotypes (no gang references, no negative light on women or blacks, no gangster references, no swearing, etc) Require we elect a black president every other term, the list goes on and on. No doubt you would not want any of these done but you allow reverse discrimination? Why is THAT ok but these others not???


And, some who have black skin are the descendants of those who sold other Blacks into slavery. Should they have to pay reparations?

If whites are descendants of those who came over as indentured servants, should they be entitled to reparations? What percentage of your forebears must have been slaves before you get the reparation money? What of poor whites--do they still have to pay?

Reparations for something that happened to someone you don't even know is, frankly, preposterous.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 9:21 am

And this is why I did not continue with Freeman or RickyP (Yes, I am surprised to lump them together, but there it is...). If they do not give a position, then their opinion matters little to them.

It is the same reason I do not argue politics with someone who did not vote. Their opinion matters so little to them, that I should not be wasting my words with them.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 11:36 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
danivon wrote:If Lincoln saw today's Republican Party, he'd be ashamed.

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."


If Jefferson saw today's Democratic Party, he'd become a Republican.
Not really analogous. Lincoln was in the Republican Party. Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist, later Democratic-Republican. The Democratic-Republicans split into the Democrats and National Republicans in the 1820s with Jackson. The National Republicans led to the Whigs, the Whigs led to the Republicans. It is hard to say which of the two branches of the old DR party Jefferson would have remained in.

I'm not sure he'd like what he'd see in the current Republicans either, frankly. Too much religiosity, militarism, and he'd certainly aver from Trump.
Last edited by danivon on 14 Feb 2017, 11:48 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 11:40 am

Actually, I think my position was pretty clear , Brad. The issue is not one of semantics but what kinds of policies regarding government regarding race we should be concerned about. I noted my concern about power and how policies that support the majority who have the power cannot be viewed in the same light as policies that seek to enable minorities with a history of discrimination that has effects continuing into the present to have a better chance. Apparently you disagree with me, but if you don't want to respond that's fine.

And DF's continuing to ignore the fact that Southern racists leaped into the Republican Party allowing it to dominate the South after 1968 is astonishing to me. Trying to say that the current Democratic Party is the one to be concerned about with regard to race is laughable.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 12:37 pm

I DO want do discuss it, Freeman. I re-read all of you posts of late, and I can not see a definition of what the definition of what a racist policy, and you said what it is not. Your timestamp of 13 Feb 2017, 4:42 pm did not clear that up much.

Make it succinct if possible. What defines a racist policy? I have been doing research myself, and I found this:

http://www.sistahvegan.com/2013/06/01/can-black-people-be-racist-towards-white-people/

All I could think is wow. Such frustration and anger.

I am reticent to ask any more questions lest they become a distraction to you for the question I asked above.

What is the definition of a racist policy? Not what a racist policy is NOT. What IS a racist policy? Does equal treatment factor into it?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 12:53 pm

tom
The state needed to correct the wrong and make all people equal under the law.

And when did that happen Tom?
And what was the response of the community to these laws? Immediate compliance by everyone?
When a man was freed from servitude, was it enough just to say, your free now? Go on...
Being "free under the law" doesn't mean you have equal access to justice. Justice costs money.
Being "free under the law" doesn't mean you have equal opportunity. That costs money and requires educational opportunity.
Being "free under the law" doesn't mean anything without the means to make use of that freedom.
White GIs were given free educations and business loans when returning to civilian life after WWII. Black soldiers weren't. Both groups offered sacrifice for freedom. Only one group got the state to support them. That kind of state support right?
So, when, in your mind, did people of color actually start to receive equal treatment under the law?

bbauska
If they do not give a position, then their opinion matters little to them.

I gave you a clear position.
A state that has damaged a class of people through evil acts that were lawful...has a responsibility to try and repair some of the damage.
What that specifically is ..... depends. I don't believe "reparations" are possible 300 years after the fact. But I do believe that offering a hand up to those who's class has been ill treated for years, is the right thing to do. (Some might say, the Christian thing to do...)


tom
The courts handle any illegalities not the state trying to "correct" past wrongs, in their attempts to try and "correct" things, the state had created a reverse discrimination that only created more animosity between races
.
Please illustrate some examples of what you think is "reverse discrimination"?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 1:13 pm

freeman3 wrote:And DF's continuing to ignore the fact that Southern racists leaped into the Republican Party allowing it to dominate the South after 1968 is astonishing to me.


To me too. Disappointing.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 1:21 pm

I re-read what you said also. You did not define racist policy either. I assume you mean that you support the current conditions of Title IX and Affirmative Action when it comes to race, but not when it comes to social status or economic status, as neither of those are delineated against.

A racist policy one that gives preferential treatment to a race of people over another race through government edict or law. We will not disagree that there were racist policies. We will not disagree that reparations should not be paid 300 years after the fact. If you find a slave holder, then that person should be tried, convicted and sued for damages. If you find a slave, then that person should be brought forward with a claim and paid handsomely for the damages.

I don't think either of those things are achievable (just like you do, apparently).

You seem to conflate the government responsibility and the Christian responsibility. Unless you want a religious based government, I would suggest you cease making Christian comparisons to what the government should be doing.

Let me help you.
A. The US government should be enacting policies that give a race of people preferential treatment in hiring, education, and welfare assistance.
B. The US government should NOT be enacting policies that give a race of people preferential treatment in hiring, education, and welfare assistance.

Choose one. Just give a letter. A or B.

As for me... I choose B
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 1:38 pm

freeman3 wrote:And DF's continuing to ignore the fact that Southern racists leaped into the Republican Party allowing it to dominate the South after 1968 is astonishing to me. Trying to say that the current Democratic Party is the one to be concerned about with regard to race is laughable.


Two points:

1. It's possible some racists jumped to the GOP. On the other hand, people don't readily change parties. That's why many Jews have not changed parties, even though the Democrats are as anti-Israel as they could be without hoisting the PLO flag.

That said, racism is not much of a factor these days. Well, check that, it's as likely to be a problem on the left as it is on the right. It just so happens that on the left it's fine to proclaim your hatred for white people. Of course, to Leftists that's not "racism." Whatever.

2. The current Democratic Party is all about race. If it wasn't for fracturing the electorate into "targets," the Democratic Party could not exist. It's all about "divide and conquer." If the Democrats actually had to debate ideas, they'd never win.

Seriously, every nominee from the GOP is branded as a racist. It's all the Democrats have.

Well, that and thinly-veiled socialism.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 1:50 pm

Right. Forgot. Liberals only "know" what is on liberal websites. In that world, minorities love everyone. It's whites that are filled with hate.

Oh, sorry. Let me illumine your darkened minds.

Really, you have no excuse. This was in HuffPo:

Now, normally my white skin would admittedly preclude me from even suggesting that a black activist should hang up the megaphone, but Khogali has made a habit of directing violent, hateful language towards people with white skin, so much so that I feel comfortable calling her out. She once mused that just by having white skin, white people are sub-human. She tried to qualify that statement by saying white people did not have a high amount of melanin, which prevents them from absorbing light, and with it a sense of moral clarity.

Now, maybe if this was her only controversial statement all could be forgiven, but this is a pattern of hate that can't be ignored any longer. In April 2016 Khogali tweeted "Plz Allah give me strength to not cuss/kill these men and white folks out here today. Plz Plz Plz."


More:

A Black Lives Matter activist, who also claims to be a pre-school teacher, gave a fiery speech at an anti-Trump rally in Seattle. “We need to start killing people,” she said to a smattering of applause. “First off, we need to start killing the White House. The White House must die.”
The unidentified woman also had choice words to say about white people and reparations.
“White people, give your @#$! money, your @#$! house, your @#$! property, give it @#$! all,” she said during Sunday’s protest. “You need to reparate[sic] black and indigenous people right now.”


There are plenty of examples of black hatred toward whites, saying things that would be worthy of the KKK if the roles were reversed. Why is it okay?

Why is it okay for Madonna to talk about blowing up the White House?

Oh, but the women's march was "just like the Tea Party." Wait. What?

What TP featured speaker ever called for the death of the President? What TP demonstration destroyed businesses and carried thousands of R-rated and X-rated signs?
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 2:40 pm

You make some reasonable points in your response to me, DF. I don't have time to response to either Brad or your post in detail right now. But it is disappointing that you do not recognize as historical facts the following: the Republican Party was dead in the South from the 1860s until the late 1960s because Lincoln freed the slaves, (2) the Republican Party came to dominate the South because the Democratic Party under Johnson passed the civils right bill in 1964 and Voting Right bill and Nixon persuaded Southern voters to switch over to the Republican Party by promising he would be less aggressive on integration. The basis for current domination of the Republican Party of the South is historically rooted in racism. That's not an "alternative fact"--that's a fact, as in that is the truth.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 4:10 pm

freeman3 wrote:You make some reasonable points in your response to me, DF. I don't have time to response to either Brad or your post in detail right now. But it is disappointing that you do not recognize as historical facts the following: the Republican Party was dead in the South from the 1860s until the late 1960s because Lincoln freed the slaves, (2) the Republican Party came to dominate the South because the Democratic Party under Johnson passed the civils right bill in 1964 and Voting Right bill and Nixon persuaded Southern voters to switch over to the Republican Party by promising he would be less aggressive on integration. The basis for current domination of the Republican Party of the South is historically rooted in racism. That's not an "alternative fact"--that's a fact, as in that is the truth.


You can argue all you want. History is on the side of the GOP. I named most of the racism of your party--and it's extensive.

Nixon? Really? Maybe it had something to do with, oh, I don't know, Vietnam?

Mercy.

The Democrats of 1968 were leaning toward being the "We're ashamed of our country" party. McGovern in 1972 was the affirmation of that. Carter won by portraying himself as moderate--and having a crippled opponent.

Racism is an easy excuse, but it doesn't wash outside of the liberal echo chamber. 99.9% of the time "racism" is hurled as a charge it is by liberals who know the person charged is not a racist, but they also know they have nothing else to use (see Jeff Sessions).
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 4:53 pm

:banghead: :shots: :crazy:
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 6:16 pm

Brad:
Let me help you.
A. The US government should be enacting policies that give a race of people preferential treatment in hiring, education, and welfare assistance.
B. The US government should NOT be enacting policies that give a race of people preferential treatment in hiring, education, and welfare assistance.

Choose one. Just give a letter. A or B.

As for me... I choose B


I think there is something to be said for both Freeman's position and Brad's position. Freeman is recognizing the historical atrocity and trying to correct it. Brad is respecting the important principle of quality of opportunity instead of equality of outcomes. Both positions are reasonable.

Although I do agree that some redress is appropriate, it's also clear to me that the redress doesn't really work for several reasons:

1. It is a blunt instrument. Obama's father did not suffer from slavery; his mother was white. His road was probably a little more challenging as an African American, but whose to say? Yet he probably benefited from affirmative action in terms of school selection. Sasha and Melia have huge benefits across the board -- wealthy, famous, loving, and stable parents, great experiences. Do they really need preferential treatment too? There are white people who grow up as orphans with nothing who are being disadvantaged in these schemes. What about Japanese people whose parents were interned in camps? How about the children of white refugees with PTSD? They don't receive any preferences.

2. How long does it last? We've had preferences since the 60's. When they were created was there an expectation that they would last this long. Given the progress will they have to go on for another 50 or 100 years?

I do agree that there should be some preferences but it certainly isn't a panacea given the state of the country.