What I find hilarious about this poster is that you could make a very good case for everything applying to the Republican Party of the last quarter century. Golden Rule? Every man for himself. Responsibility. Greed is good. Tolerance? Gay bashing. Race baiting. Independent women? Slam any woman who is presumptuous enough to try and lead. Unless of course, they know their place like sweet Condi. In which case we point to her to show we don't really mean all the things conveyed by our words and actions. 21st Century? The Neocoans and their enablers just can't understand why everyone doesn't support global hegemony. Remake the world? Talk about failure to do so, see the Bush administration. The swastika speaks for itself... one doesn't really have to mention the corporatism, the wiretapping, the suspension of habeus corpus, the increased secrecy, the manipulation of science to serve political needs, etc. Change religion to party and you pretty much get the Republican platform of recent years. Geez, you guys really do project a lot.
Nothing white guilt about it. Simply historical. I can't help it if you can't handle the facts. And really, do you have to ask this question? Go read a history book. Look for the words Jim and Crow.
Are you living in the 1950s? You and Deckard need to put down your peace pipe this evening and wake up. There's not one black slave living today in America who ever received a lashing. Your stupid post would have been valid in the 90s, not the 2000s....and by 90s, I mean the 1790s.
Calm down...I didn't mean to insult your brotherhood in ideology against Americans and freedom...don't cut off my head, bro...
Talk about stupid post. Your breadth of ignorance is astounding. This happened in 1981, my first year of college: This happened when I was a kid: And this: Thankfully, so did this: You guys have had a nice little run, but the game has been decided and you lost.
What About Hate Crimes By Blacks? By Walter Williams FrontPageMagazine.com | Thursday, August 30, 2001 Creators Syndicate | August 22, 1999 IF THERE’S TO BE RACIAL GOODWILL and harmony, at the minimum we must be willing to confront sometimes ugly truths. One of those truths has to do with interracial crime. We all readily condemn highly publicized racial violence, and rightly so, such as last year's brutal murder of James Byrd by white supremacists in Jasper, Texas. However, there's little notice and condemnation of interracial crimes when whites are the victims. Last June, Jared Taylor, president of New Century Foundation, in Oakton, Va., held a press conference at Washington's National Press Club to report on the foundation's recently released study, " The Color of Crime." Some of the study's findings about interracial crime were surprising, so much so that I did an independent verification of the numbers. Since 1972, the U.S. Department of Justice has conducted a National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to determine the frequency of certain crimes. One category is interracial crimes. Its most recent publication (1997), "Criminal Victimization in the U.S.," reports on data collected in 1994. In that year, there were about 1,700,000 interracial crimes, of which 1,276,030 involved whites and blacks. In 90 percent of the cases, a white was the victim and a black was the perpetrator, while in 10 percent of the cases it was the reverse. Another finding of the NCVS report is that of the 2,025,464 violent crimes committed by blacks in 1994, 1,140,670 were against whites - that's slightly over 56 percent. Whites committed 5,114,692 violent crimes; 135,360, or 2.6 percent were against blacks. In 1997, there were 2,336 whites charged with anti-black crimes and 718 blacks charged with anti-white crimes, so-called hate crimes. Although the absolute number of white offenders was larger, the black rate per 100,000 of the population was greater, making blacks twice as likely to commit hate crimes. (from the tenure under President Clinton...I guess this is the way for democrats to oversee equality in hate crimes) Regardless of race, criminal violence is despicable and deserving of condemnation. But far more destructive are the official and unofficial attempts to mislead and conceal. Roughly 400 members of the major print and electronic media were invited to the press conference on "The Color of Crime." According to Mr. Taylor, several asked for advanced copies before they'd consider sending anyone. Only 14 people stayed for the briefing and only a couple reported on the study, most notably The Washington Times and C-Span. One reporter said that he'd like to write a story but he doubted he could get it by his editor. If the facts were the other way around, everybody from The New York Times and President Clinton to the NAACP, Jesse Jackson and the Congressional Black Caucus would be shouting about it and demanding that something be done. Some might want to keep silent about the facts for fear that publicizing the true nature and magnitude of interracial crime might give, as I've been told, "aid and comfort to America's white racists." To the contrary, silence is perhaps one of the most effective recruitment tools for racists. They can use our silence for proselytizing disaffected whites with demagoguery about how hate crimes are not important unless a black is the victim, and how no one cares about blacks raping white women and assaulting white men. Interracial crime has other devastating effects on racial relations. Whites are apprehensive of blacks, and blacks are offended at being the subjects of that apprehension. Whites are less willing to live in black neighborhoods. For the unthinking among us, these and other responses to racial disparities in crime translate into simple racism. Multi-ethnic societies are inherently unstable, and how we handle matters of interracial crime is just one of the ways that we're contributing to that instability.
You're citing extremely isolated incidents that happened 27 years ago (at the latest)? Good grief, man, can you see the broader picture that all this crap is a relic of yesteryear? I know you're an old geezer full of guilt who has probably singed his eyebrows a few too many times to remember much, but wow, I didn't realize you were that out of touch. I suggest speaking with Deckard's pet owl for wisdom
Nice. You come back with one of the purest examples of projection. Thanks for making my point. What, pray tell, makes you think I'm against Americans and freedom? Or support an ideology that is? My family has fought in every major war in this country's history. The blood of my relatives and ancestors is scattered from Savannah to Andersonville to the Western Front to the Pacific and France again to Vietnam to Kuwait (cousin... helicopter accident). Even my great aunt was a spy for the OSS. As to freedom, I never supported the guy that wanted habeus corpus suspended or that wiretapped illegally or that tortured without respect to history, law, religion, common decency and common sense. That's your boy. Like I said, pure projection. And don't try to hide behind "humor." I'm sick of you guys saying stuff in a way that allows you to say you didn't really mean it when we all know you did. If you and Big Texx and others think I'm unAmerican, come out and say it without any cute rhetorical tricks. Or if you think Obama is a terrorist symp, say it like a man. I'd have much more respect for you if you did. As it stands now, it's just pathetic (to borrow one of Newt's unintentionally projecting words).
I don't think you're unAmerican, just horribly out of touch with reality. You live in a dream world alongside Deckard and FranchiseBlade where you selectively choose isolated incidents waaaay in the past to create your current beliefs system (like the fact that a black got lynched in 1981, therefore you have over the top white guilt towards all blacks 27 years later)
You willfully fail to understand the social and psychological impacts of those incidents. Keep flailing. Even though you had a brief rejuvenation since 2000, you're on the losing side of history... and every one of your posts in this thread just make it more evident to all.
Another example of your ignorance on display. 27 years is not very long at all. These days, it's a third of a lifetime. It's a little over twice as long as FDR was President. John Quincy Adams watched the Battle of Bunker Hill from his house. His grandson, Henry Adams, remembers playing under his grandfather's desk in the House of Representatives. Henry died in Boston in 1918. I bet there's some 100 yo in Boston who met Adams as a kid. That's the entire history of this country in the lives of just three people. And 27 years is waaaay in the past? Right.
What is it Rox? Do I suffer from selective tunnel vision or am I a member of the brotherhood in ideology against Americans and freedom? As soon as you get called on something you back off as soon as you can. You and basso are quite similar in that way. Pathetic. And by the way, I'm here... online. There's no need to make a snide comment to BT when I'm around and you can say it directly.
Read much? (Rhetorical question... the answer is obvious.) And by the way, nit that I need to defend myself against your asinine reasoning, but I think I have much more invested in the future than you. I want my kids to have a wonderful life... which is why I don't want people who think like you and Rox anywhere near power ever again.
Historically, the slavery practiced beforehand was a contract between individuals rather than a legacy passed onto the slave's children which applied exclusively to blacks and sometimes the indigenous survivors of a conquered land. While there were some white slaves if you look far back into the age of slave trade, they were freed on a point of pride and that practice was abandoned and sometimes outlawed. Slavery is a dehumanizing concept individually and culturally for the slaves and the masters. Just how extreme can you compare a butler to a slave? At the very least a butler can run away without fear of pursuit by law enforcement.
What kind of revisionist history is being taught about Slavery in the History of the U.S.? People are sitting here trying to say, "Its isn't really so bad. I'd rather be a slave than starve in a poor country. It's really just like servitude." People were separated from their families, taken away from their mothers and fathers, sisters and brothers. They were forbidden from ever getting an education. It isn't like they didn't have time, if they tried they faced punishment including possibly death. They were not allowed to educate themselves. It wasn't based on spoils of war, or for a limited time, or like they were treated in a certain humane way as with other cultures and their slaves. It was based on their race, and it was a life time, and their families were also part of it. In the history of slavery this was the worst. IT doesn't compare to slavery in other cultures. Again, even after they were freed, they weren't allowed an education, they couldn't vote or have a say in how they were governed. For people to try and say that slavery wasn't really that bad, is just silly, actually pretty offensive.
