I'm not aware of any Asian only scholarships but I graduated about 20 years ago. I got the white scholarships. How many non-whites are there in NASCAR anyways? http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/sports/7957224.htm Posted on Sat, Feb. 14, 2004 Diversity hasn't reached NASCAR yet BY BOB MORAN East Valley (Mesa, Ariz.) Tribune MESA, Ariz. - (KRT) - It's February, so it's time for Sunday's Daytona 500 - the start of the NASCAR season. You've heard and read about the new Cup sponsor, the new format for the championship run, and such major competition changes as a new nose for the aging Ford Taurus, and Ford owners Robert Yates and Jack Roush, longtime rivals, forming a partnership to improve their teams. Some other news you may have missed. And that's what this space will be devoted to today. As you well know, the news media has declared NASCAR the last bastion of participatory racism in sports. That's made the Fortune 500 companies who are flocking to the fast-growing enterprise a bit skittish. . . .
It appears the main problem is college Republicans are just stupid. http://www.sltrib.com/2004/feb/02202004/utah/140572.asp . . . During a Feb. 5 meet-the-candidate night for the newly formed College Republicans U. chapter -- not to be confused with the older and more established College Republicans -- representatives for several candidates revved up the jovial crowd with such statements as "We need to put an end to the liberal Matheson era" and support "the Democrat killers." As the audience giggled off and on, Mike Clement, representing congressional candidate Tim Bridgewater, spoke excitedly about Republican successes when College Republicans work hard, citing the victory of Norm Coleman in the 2002 U.S. Senate race in Minnesota. As Clement bantered with the audience, one Republican gadfly noted that they defeated former Vice President Walter Mondale in that race, adding: "We had to kill off Wellstone to get it." He was referring to the death in a plane crash of Sen. Paul Wellstone and his family before the election. . . .
I'm glad some people have their minds on what's really important. Good to see the 'compassionate conservative' stuff wasn't just a gimmick.
One example is all you have? I can throw tons of sweet, kind comments by liberals about folks on the right. So don't act for a damned minute like conservatives are the only ones who did it. That guy was a prick, but you are aware that there are a ton of pricks on the left as well, eh? Hate speech from the left Jeff Jacoby (archive) December 29, 2003 In December 1994 I wrote the first of what would become a yearly series of columns on the subject of liberal hate speech. (See the series here.) That was the year Republicans swept the midterm elections to win control of Congress, and ideological passions were running high. I had noticed that when a prominent Republican or conservative said something offensive about liberals, it typically set off a storm of media condemnation, while an anti-conservative smear voiced by a liberal or a Democrat rarely drew any protest. There was no end of sour commentary, for example, when Newt Gingrich recommended (in a GOP strategy meeting) that Clinton Democrats be portrayed as "the enemy of normal Americans." It was an outrageous remark, particularly from an incoming speaker of the House, and Gingrich deserved the drubbing he received. But when Jesse Jackson explicitly likened the proposals of the new majority to Nazism and apartheid -- "If this were Germany, we would call it fascism. If this were South Africa, we would call it racism" -- there wasn't even a ripple of disapproval. Julianne Malveaux, a radio host and USA Today columnist, caught no flak when she prayed aloud for the death of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. "I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease," she snarled on PBS. "Well, that's how I feel." What was true in 1994 remains largely true today. MSNBC fired right-wing talk host Michael Savage in July, and rightly so, when he told a gay caller to "get AIDS and die, you pig." The liberal Nina Totenberg, on the other hand, suffered no ill effects for saying, during the flap over General Jerry Boykin's views of Islam and the war on terrorism, "I hope he's not long for this world." When the startled host asked if she were "putting a hit out on this guy," Totenberg backtracked and said she only wanted to see him expire "in his job." But this isn't the first time the NPR diva has publicly wished death on a conservative. "I think he ought to be worried about what's going on in the Good Lord's mind," she said of Senator Jesse Helms in 1995, "because if there is retributive justice, he'll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it." Such venom should be beyond the political and social pale. But too many liberals would still rather dismiss conservative ideas with a ugly slur than actually grapple with them on the merits. Debating the pros and cons of racial preferences or US foreign policy can be difficult; much easier to simply hiss "Racist!" or "Nazi!" or some equally poisonous insult. "What you have now" -- this is left-wing activist and actress Janeane Garofalo, analyzing the Republican Party during an appearance at the 92d Street Y in New York earlier this year -- "is people that are closet racists, misogynists, homophobes, and people who love . . . the politics of exclusion identifying as conservative." That was apparentlygood enough to win her a guest-host slot on CNN's "Crossfire," where she offered this thoughtful critique of the Patriot Act: "It is in fact a conspiracy of the 43d Reich." Ah, yes, the reductio ad Hitlerum. Why meet a conservative with facts or logic when you can simply tar him with the Nazi brush? Thus we had Nancy Giles on the "CBS Sunday Morning show" sourly tying Rush Limbaugh's "edgy" radio manner to you-know-who's. "Hitler would have killed in talk radio," Giles declared. "He was edgy, too." Ellen Gray of the Philadelphia Daily News struck a similar note in commenting on "The Reagans," the cancelled miniseries. "If Hitler had more friends," she told The Washington Post, "CBS wouldn't have aired [its Hitler mini-series] either." But of course no one came in for more Hitler comparisons this year than George W. Bush. Third Reich references were practically a staple of antiwar rhetoric. The president "is not the orator that Hitler was," acknowledged leftist commentator Dave Lindorff at Counterpunch.org. "But comparisons of the Bush administration's fearmongering tactics to those practiced so successfully and with such terrible results by Hitler and Goebbels . . . are not at all out of line." Such repugnant comparisons are in fact *wildly* out of line. But so long as the double standard persists, liberals will continue to make them with impunity. Of course this complaint can be taken too far. Ed Gillespie, the Republican Party's chairman, has lately been accusing Democrats of engaging in "political hate speech" when they call Bush a "liar" or a "miserable failure." But there is a world of difference between labeling someone a failure and labeling him Hitler. My objection has never been to political elbow-throwing. What I have tried to argue is that certain kinds of insult -- those that joke about people's deaths, or slime them as racists or fascists or terrorists -- do such violence to our public discourse that they should simply be shunned. Ten years ago almost no one was calling attention to this liberal slander problem; now magazine articles and even books are being written about it. Progress of a sort, I guess. There's room for a lot more. Link 1999—The Year in Liberal Hate Speech Boston Globe | December 30, 1999 REMEMBER THE WAVE of outrage that swept the nation after Charlton Heston, the president of the National Rifle Association, told a radio interviewer that the best way to deal with liberal filmmaker Spike Lee would be to "shoot him with a .44-caliber Bulldog" revolver? Remember how newspaper editorials scathingly condemned Heston's appalling remark? Remember the full-page ads blasting the twisted mindset that leads conservatives like Heston to say such grotesque things? You don't remember? Don't feel bad. It never happened. Heston never spoke those words about Lee. Lee spoke them about Heston. He was talking to reporters in May, just a few weeks after the slaughter in Littleton, Colo. Asked for his thoughts on Heston, Lee recommended assassinating him with a .44 special. A conservative who made such a comment about a liberal would have been crushed under an avalanche of denunciation. But when a liberal talks that way about a conservative, the media rarely notice. Welcome to my yearly column on liberal hate speech and the double standard that shields it. By "hate speech," I don't mean language that is merely insulting. When Rosie O'Donnell, hosting a Hillary Clinton fundraiser in October, described Rudolph Giuliani as New York's "village idiot" and compared his looks to "a Pez dispenser," she was simply being obnoxious. When Margaret Carlson of Time magazine said, apropos congressional Republicans, that "the only thing that could explain this love of tax cuts is a lowered IQ," she was engaging in childish name-calling. But when liberals liken conservatives to Hitler, or call for them to be killed—that's hate speech. It isn't only Spike Lee who advocates death for those who have the temerity to hold non-left-wing views. When Elia Kazan, the bete noir of Hollywood's aging Reds, was awarded the Oscar for lifetime achievement, the haters were out in force. "I'll be watching, hoping someone shoots him," said Abraham Polonsky, who was blacklisted for his Communist sympathies in the 1950s. "It would no doubt be a thrill." The Washington Post's Richard Cohen commented on the fact that Newt Gingrich was cheating on his wife even as he was denouncing Bill Clinton's moral failings. "For hypocrisy, for sheer gall," Cohen wrote, "Gingrich should be hanged." Even the comics aren't free of death threats. The main character in Aaron McGruder's "Boondocks" is Huey, a militant black student. In one strip, Huey considers titles for his report on "the black neoconservative movement and its most famous champion." His first choice: "Ward Connerly Should Be Beaten by Raekwon the Chef With a Spiked Bat." (Eventually he settles on something less obscure, but just as ugly: "Ward Connerly Is a Boot-Licking Uncle Tom.") No doubt Polonsky, Cohen, and McGruder didn't mean for their words to be taken literally. But the test of hate speech isn't what you mean, it's what you say. And saying that a public figure ought to be murdered is so far beyond the pale that even liberals shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. Central to the leftist mentality is the belief that conservative opinions are not simply misguided, they're evil. Conservatives are not erring brethren to be reasoned with, they're moral heretics to be excommunicated. And so liberals routinely reach for the most vicious comparisons when talking about nonliberals: Nazis, racists, the Ku Klux Klan. "Conservative legal interest groups," says Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell, "such as the Center for Individual Rights and the Southeastern Legal Foundation"—both of which oppose racial preferences and quotas—"are … a homogenized version of the Klan. They may have traded in their sheets for suits … but it's the same old racism." Newsweek's archliberal Eleanor Clift was one of many who erupted with venom when Bill Clinton was impeached. "That herd of managers from the House," she hissed in January, "I mean, frankly all they were missing was white sheets. They're like night riders…. The left-leaning Arkansas Times spat poison at the independent counsel. "Kenneth Starr," the paper editorialized, "is cunning, ruthless, and about as well-mannered as Heinrich Himmler." In the Los Angeles Times, Karen Grigsby Bates wrote, "Whenever I hear Trent Lott speak, I immediately think of nooses decorating trees. Big trees, with black bodies swinging…" Cartoonist Paul Conrad, also of the L.A. Times, drew a sketch of Buford Furrow—the bigot who opened fire in a Jewish community center in August, then murdered a Filipino mailman—and labeled it: "A faith-based compassionate conservative." Republicans opposing a minimum wage hike, charged US Rep. Major Owens of New York, are comparable to foreign leaders who support "ethnic cleansing"—i.e., mass killing. Then there was the proposal in Florida to raise funds for adoption agencies through a new specialty license plate bearing the logo "Choose Life." There are already 45 such plates, which promote everything from protecting dolphins to Special Olympics. A pro-life message, however, was too much for state Senator Skip Campbell, who fretted that senators would next be asked to approve a plate reading "Be a Nazi." But for sheer filth, nothing in 1999 topped Salon's hate-filled attack on Ann Coulter, an attractive and well-known conservative activist and Clinton critic. In June, Coulter wrote a nonpolitical column lamenting the state of romance in Washington. Soon after, the web magazine Salon, an avidly pro-Clinton publication, launched a malignant personal attack. It purported to offer eleven tips for improving her love life. Among them: "Quit injecting yourself with your own urine," "Stop being a mean b****," "Buy a vibrator," and "Get your head out of your ass." It urged her to tape a sign in her kitchen reading, "Men don't want to date castrating b****es." And that's not to mention the gross innuendoes that can't be repeated in a family newspaper. If a conservative website had hurled such vileness at, say, Cheryl Mills, Clinton's liberal young attorney, there would have been a furious outcry. It would have become a national scandal. Pundits and talk show hosts would have torn the website and its writer to shreds. But Salon is liberal and Coulter is not. So nobody said a thing. Mr. Jacoby is a columnist for the Boston Globe. Click here to send him a message. © 1999 Globe Newspaper Company link Jeff Jacoby Liberal hate speech, 2000 YOU'RE WATCHING "The O'Reilly Factor," Fox News Channel's popular nightly interview show. The host is commenting acidly on the presidential campaign. To illustrate a point, he airs some video of Al Gore addressing the Democratic convention in Los Angeles. And as you watch, amazed, the words "Snipers Wanted" appear on the screen as Gore speaks. It never happened, of course. But can you imagine the reaction if it had? If Bill O'Reilly ever pulled such a stunt, he would be pilloried from coast to coast. Editorials would sear him for joking about murder. Democrats would blast the "sick right-wing mentality" that thinks killing the vice president is humorous. Talk shows would seethe. The Federal Communications Commission would investigate. And Fox News, flooded with petitions demanding O'Reilly's head, would be forced to take him off the air. That's the script, more or less, when well-known conservatives aim vicious insults and hateful slurs at liberals. But when the venom moves in the other direction -- when it's a conservative being smeared -- the indignation meter barely flutters. Which is why there was no explosion over "Snipers Wanted." The truth is, it did happen -- only not on Fox News and not with an image of Al Gore. It was Craig Kilborn, host of CBS's "Late Late Show," who issued the call for snipers while showing footage of George W. Bush at the GOP convention in Philadelphia. Eventually CBS issued a brief apology, mumbled something about the joke being "inappropriate and regrettable" -- and that was the end of it. No seething, no petitions, nobody taken off the air. Par for the course -- for liberal hate speech. As each year draws to a close, I take a look at this persistent double standard. Each year, sad to say, there is no shortage of illustrations. Y2K was no exception. Bush didn't realize the microphone was live when he described New York Times reporter Adam Clymer as a "major league a-hole," and got pummelled for his crudity. Dan Rather, to cite just one example, scolded him for "meanness," "nastiness," and using "gutter language." But when Jesse Jackson accused Bush of using "Nazi tactics" to win the election, neither Rather nor any of his colleagues lifted an eyebrow. I grant that it's not nice to use the A-word -- not even when talking about a New York Times reporter. But it's not nearly as vile as comparing your political opponents to acolytes of Adolf Hitler. Yet liberals routinely liken Republicans and conservatives to mass-murdering totalitarians, and no one objects. The platform of the Texas Republican Party, Bill Clinton sneered in June, "was so bad that you could get rid of every fascist tract in your library if you just had a copy" of it. Joe Gellar, the Democratic Party chairman in Miami-Dade County, fumed that out-of-town Republicans protesting the ballot recounts were engaging in "brownshirt tactics." US Rep. Patrick Kennedy told Democrats in Pennsylvania, "All you need to do is look at Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, Dick Armey, Tom DeLay ... There's always been a fascist kind of crowd in every society." And for those too dense to grasp the point -- conservatives are the moral equals of goose-stepping SS men -- filmmaker Michael Moore spelled it out. "There are tens of thousands of people who lived through [the Holocaust], escaped the ovens, and are now living out their final years in South Florida," he wrote on his web site in demanding a new vote in Palm Beach County. "Sixty-two years ago tonight, the ... German government sent goon squads throughout the country to trash and burn the homes, stores, and temples of its Jewish citizens. Seven years and 6 million slaughtered lives later, the Jewish people of Europe were virtually extinct. A few survived. I will not allow those who survived to ... be abused again." Anticonservative hate speech was plentiful in 2000. None of it provoked an outcry from the national media. Some of the lowlights: Gay activist Dan Savage boasted on Salon.com of his efforts to infect Gary Bauer with flu. When readers appalled by this germ warfare complained, Salon's editor groused that "America has become really humourless about these things." In his New York Press column, Alexander Cockburn suggested "dropping a tactical nuclear weapon on the Cuban section of Miami." Alas, he lamented, that "would require the sort of political courage sadly lacking in Washington these days." A sickening TV spot sponsored by the NAACP showed a pickup truck dragging a chain and accused Bush of having "killed" James Byrd "all over again" when he opposed a change in the Texas hate crimes law. But for pure vitriol, nothing matched the eruption by former Clinton aide Paul Begala, who wrote on MSNBC.com about the map with color-coded election returns that showed a sea of red for Bush with small blotches of blue for Gore: "But if you look closely at that map you see a more complex picture. You see the state where James Byrd was lynched-dragged behind a pickup truch until his body came apart -- it's red. You see the state where Matthew Shepard was crucified ... for the crime of being gay -- it's red. You see the state where right-wing extremists blew up a federal office building and murdered scores of federal employees: red. The state where an Army private thought to be gay was bludgeoned to death with a baseball bat, and the state where neo-Nazi skinheads murdered two African Americans because of their skin color, and the state where Bob Jones University spews its anti-Catholic bigotry: they're all red, too." Ugly, repugnant stuff. A conservative who talked this way about liberals would be crucified. When will liberals stop talking this way about conservatives? link
I could come up with many, many more examples with just the poor *victims* you specified bamaslammer ( Ann Coulter could take up a book ) but the thread was about College Republicans, so that's why I put my example in there. edit: after a bit of research into the full statements made by some of those people the columnists complain about, I agree with most of the people the columnists complain about.
Any distinction based on race is wrong. That is why I disagree with affirmative action; it's a wrong in response to a wrong. This is merely the third wrong in this debacle.
I wasn't complaining about the fact it happens, but I wanted to point out that is not just conservatives who spew out such stupidities. And as for you agreeing with the dirtbags who wish that Jesse Helms would get AIDs and other nonsense, that is just so typical. I call names, but it is because, in my view, liberals are the "enemy within." As Lenin called the American Left, "useful idiots," so do I.
So, personal insults are OK as long as you believe it to be true? Eh, I've made a personal promise to stay away from them myself, but you really can't complain anymore bamaslammer. Makes your first week here even more hysterical, though.
It is the gospel truth. What's wrong with being called pinko-socialist when liberals are in fact, socialists or pretty damned close to it? It's proof positive that you are disingenuous with who you are. It's just a BBS, folks? If you hate the rich and advocate taxing them into equality with everyone else as many of you espouse (or close to it), you're a socialist. Come out and say it. Be proud of what you are. I am. Hate capitalism, you're a socialist. Oh yeah, liberal is too loaded a term now. Guess you want to be called progressive, right? Guess calling you liberal is a name too.
One last time, with feeling: The labels socialist/capitalist, left/right, etc. are not, contrary to the beliefs of some, terms designated for eclusively American consumption. On the global scale, which is the closest thing we have to equalling the 'true' scale, the US falls far, far to the right. Assuming that what you consider 'middle road' for the US is 'middle road' between fascism, capitalism and socilaism, left and right is a skewed perspective. Middle raod in the US still falls to the right of center for the rest of the planet, in general. Thereofe, those in the US who are, as a whole, closer to the extreme are those who lean farther in the direction the nation leans as a whole, ie right. So the assumption that someone who is to the left of cneter in the US is a socialist is actuall less supportable than assuming that someone to the right is fascist. Now, let me make it clear, I am not accusing anyone of so being. I am simply saying that, if youpre going to throw extemism around, be aware of your own vulnerability when looked at objectively.
Please point out one single post on this BBS where someone stated that they believed that the rich should be taxed to the point to where they're "equal" to the common man. Keep looking, I'll be waiting. Many liberals, including myself, believe that the rich are able to carry the burden more than the average Joe Schmo, and there's nothing wrong with asking them to pay a little more. I've yet to see a liberal on this board propose socialism. I just don't what to hear you whine next time someone calls you a name. Nearly everyone of your posts contains a personal insult of some sort, yet when someone insults you, you freak out. I've never seen anyone on this board who could dish it out as much as you and not be able to take it. Your first week here is all the evidence I really need of that.
Hey, conservatives win big. Conservatives Poised to Win Disputed Iran Election Fri February 20, 2004 03:20 PM ET http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=worldNews&storyID=4405779 I didn't say which I agreed with so you shouldn't pick them for me. However I'll go hypothetical and pretend I supported the statement you listed. "No, I do not. And neither do the people in the armed forces. Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He'd better have a bodyguard." When asked in 1994 on CNN if he thought President Clinton was "up to the job" of serving as Commander-in-Chief "The New York Times and Washington Post are both infested with homosexuals themselves. Just about every person down there is a homosexual or lesbian." "It's their deliberate, disgusting, revolting conduct that is responsible for the disease." Justifying his refusal to give financial support to families of AIDS victims "All I know is that D'Aubuisson is a free enterprise man and deeply religious." Responding to evidence that Roberto D'Aubuisson directed Salvadoran death squads that murdered thousands of civilians "We've got to have some common sense about a disease transmitted by people deliberately engaging in unnatural acts." --why he opposed approval of the Ryan White CARE act, which funds AIDS research "She's not your garden-variety lesbian. She's a militant activist-mean lesbian, working her whole career to advance the homosexual agenda." on his opposition to HUD nominee Roberta Achtenberg: "She's a damn lesbian. I am not going to put a lesbian in a position like that. If you want to call me a bigot, fine." Explaining why he was opposing the appointment of a woman for a cabinet post "They should ask their parents if it would be all right for their son or daughter to marry a Negro." -- In response to Duke University students holding a vigil after Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated, 1968 1990 Jesse Helms offers an amendment to the Hate Crimes Statistics Act stating that "the homosexual movement threatens the strength and survival of the American family" and "state sodomy laws should be enforced." "There is not one single case of AIDS in this country that cannot be traced in origin to sodomy." "If homosexuals would only stop doing what they're doing, there wouldn't be any more AIDS." "To rob the Negro of his reputation of thinking through a problem in his own fashion is about the same as trying to pretend that he doesn't have a natural instinct for rhythm and for singing and dancing." "The Negro cannot count forever on the kind of restraint that's thus far left him free to clog the streets, disrupt traffic, and interfere with other men's rights." quotes from your hero, Jesse Helms
