Someone tell me how Kerry isn't racist?

[Rooster]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/17/politics/campaign/17CND-BROW.html?ex=1085457600&en=7918e2871c565707&ei=506 2&partner=GOOGLE

He's supporting making it easier for minorities to achieve things that the majority have to work for.

And claims that there isn't adequate funding in education? like $9000/pupil isn't enough?! Privates do a good job with 60% of that. More money isn't going to help, that's been proven the last 5-10 years, where they just throw more money at a problem and it doesn't solve a damn thing.

[Allison]

I'm not sure I follow. Are you talking about affirmative action? No Child Left Behind? Desegregation? How do any of those thing make a person a racist?

[Jobius]

Reverse discrimination maybe?

[Swifty_Johnson]

In some areas between local and federal money public schools spend 10,000 a year on students.

Some private schools in the same area charge $2,500.

The test scores from the private schools beat the public schools.

Until someone gets the Public schools to spend their money more wisely, throwing more money into the system will not work.

Swifty

[Cavan]

Student Test Scores, for the most part, have a direct connection between the attention payed to that student by his or her parents.

Those students that attend private schools, for the most part, have parents that are involved in their children's education.

Kids learn from example.. if your parents feel that an education is an important part of your upbringing.. then those kids generally do better in school. That's not to say that a kid that goes to a Public school can't get the same education as one that attends a private school.

Kerry has this mentality that if we throw more money at the problem.. it will fix the problem... but over time.. this has been proven WRONG... actually over time.. as the money being spent on education per student rises... test scores are falling...

The problem isn't in funding for schools... it's deeper than that...

[Rooster]

Cavan, you're absoLUTEly correct. "Hip" parents who think education isn't that important, that teach their children that "being happy" is more important, don't teach their kids behavior or values that will help them in school.

It's very sad, because it's the kids that fall behind, not the parents.

[Allison]

These "hip" parents who think education isn't that important, and who don't teach their kids proper behavior and values, they're all Democrats, right? :rolly:

But back to the topic, how is Kerry a racist?

[Rooster]

He's saying that our constitution should favor minorities because they're at a disadvantage because they're minorities. ie, they can't hang with the white folks cause they're black or hispanic. We must make special cases for them. We must invest more money in predominantly black schools because it takes more to educate them.

Complete and utter BS. More money =! better schools.

[Allison]

He's saying that our constitution should favor minorities because they're at a disadvantage because they're minorities. ie, they can't hang with the white folks cause they're black or hispanic. We must make special cases for them. We must invest more money in predominantly black schools because it takes more to educate them.
Great googley moogley. Where did you get all that? You assume all that because Kerry thinks NCLB isn't properly funded? :eek:

[Rooster]

"To roll back affirmative action, to restrict equal rights, and to undermine the promise of our Constitution."

I must have missed that in our Constitution where it promised favorable treatment to minorities.

"When he served in Vietnam, he said, "I saw firsthand how those on the front lines of combat, black and brown, who had been casualties in far greater numbers than their representation in our population, ..."

His argument here is that because a greater of blacks died in vietnam than whites as a % of total population implies that they were sent to their deaths because they had lesser value - while that may have been true in the Civil War, it has never been true since.

Total and complete racist bullshit. He's dividing the country to further his own ends. To somehow imply that he supports blacks more than Bush.

I'm proud that a greater number of blacks (as a % of their population) enlisted to serve their country.

But just because that % was higher than whites % does not mean they were treated any different.

Bull ... shit.

[Boom]

I'm very confused. He may be wrong in saying there was racism in the military in Vietnam (I have no clue on this, haven't researched it, so for the point of argument I am willing to say he may be completely wrong about this). But how does that make him a racist?

Of course, now that I think about it, if there was no racism in the military in Vietnam, that would be pretty amazing considering that racism was pretty bad in our Country in the 60s. Weren't we turning fire hoses on black protesters singing peace songs at that time? But still, unlike some forum posters, I will admit when I don't know the facts and haven't done the research. I have absolutely no clue whether or not there was racism in the US military in Vietnam. If Kerry is wrong about the military sending the brown people to the front lines instead of the less brown people he should get his facts straight and apologize. But I just don't get how this makes him racist?

I'm not sure how I feel about affirmative action, its a super tricky issue that I haven't given enough thought too. It does seem there is a problem, but I don't think affirmative action is necessarily a fair solution to the problem. But I certainly don't think that the people who favor affirmative action are racists. They may be supporting an unfair solution to a problem, they may be misguided, they may be flat out dumbass wrong, but are they racists?

Racist is a reaaaaaaally strong word. I don't think it applies to Kerry, even if everything you said about him here is correct and even if he is 100% wrong on these issues.

[Boom]

I just read that link Rooster posted in its entirety and now I'm even more confused. Where is Kerry a racist in that? Is it all about the affirmative action thing? I think you are really overstepping here. In that article Bush says a lot of the same things that Kerry says. About how our society is a lot less racist, but more needs to be done. Sounds like Bush wants to do stuff for Black people. Is he a racist too?

And that Kerry quote about the promise of our constitution. Read it again, he is saying that the promise of our constitution is "equality." Noone can deny that. He seems to think that rolling back affirmative action is undermining equality. I don't think I necessarily agree with him on that. Clearly the stated goal of affirmative action is to achieve equality, but I don't necessarily think its the right (or fair) way to get it. I think we agree on that. But while I may agree that affirmative action isn't the best, or fairest, way to achieve equality, (it may even be a completely unfair and ridiculous way to achieve equality), I think its a far stretch to say that people who support it are racists.

Don't Collen Powell and Condolezza Rice support affirmative action? Are they racists?

Btw, I am unsure if those two people support affirmative action. I seem to recall reading that but I might be mistaken. Since I am not sure, I will make it absolutely clear that I am not sure when I state it, rather then simply state it as an absolute fact, then defend it to the death if I am proven wrong, like some posters on this forum.

[Swifty_Johnson]

I'm very confused. He may be wrong in saying there was racism in the military in Vietnam (I have no clue on this, haven't researched it, so for the point of argument I am willing to say he may be completely wrong about this).

Shure there was racism in the military in the 60s. What Kerry is trying to imply is that people of color were killed in a higher percentace than those who were white. While someone of color hard a harder time getting promoted or medals, Vietcong would not care if they were white or not. They killed all Americans. His statement is very misleading.

Swifty

[Allison]

Wow, Rooster. You are reading waaaaay too much into Kerry's remarks ... and that's putting it lightly.

[Boom]

Ummm, Swifty, I don't think Kerry was saying the Vietnamese were racists and aimed for the black guys. I think he was saying that the white officers were racists and sent the black guys on more dangerous missions.

Your interpretation is alot funnier though.

And before I get accused of anything. I have no idea whether or not it is true. If Kerry is incorrect, and there is no evidence of racists white officers sending black soldiers to get shot at, then Kerry should get his facts straight and apologize. If it is true, I guess he can keep on saying it.

[spyder913]

affirmative action is for a good cause but it's not a solution for the problem, especially in the context of urban schools. more money will help some but lack of money is not the cause of the problem.

letting minorities into jobs and universities soley to match the population is bad, but it only has been put there because if it isn't the minorities are under-represented. this is a symptom of some other cause more likely than it is racism, as evidenced by lower standardized test scores by minorities.

[Rooster]

Could the following logical conclusion not be drawn?

You feel that a minority requires special treatment to compete therefore they are inferior.
Minority schools require more money because minorities do not learn as quickly.
We must FORCE integration of schools and bus majority race students to minority based schools because it's proven minority students learn better when amongst majority students.

How are these conclusions false?
How are they not racist?
How is this supported by our Constitution?
Where in the Constitution does it force private and public organizations to give preferential treatment to one group over another?

[Swifty_Johnson]

Ummm, Swifty, I don't think Kerry was saying the Vietnamese were racists and aimed for the black guys.

That's not what I said either. The Vietnamese killed all who were before them.

Kerry is incorrect, and there is no evidence of racists white officers sending black soldiers to get shot at, then Kerry should get his facts straight and apologize. If it is true, I guess he can keep on saying it.

Segerated units went out in WWII. When a unit went out people from all races went out together. There wasn't an all minority unit for an officer to send out and get shot up, everyone took their chances together.

The racism came in when promtions and medals were awarded, in that people of color did get the shaft.

Swifty

[Allison]

Yes, some of these "conslusions" you've listed are racist and not supported by the Constitution. But, I'd still would like to know why you assume those are John Kerry's conclusions. Who has said that minorities are inferior? Who has said that they don't learn as quickly? Who has said that the Constitution guarantees preferential treatment to anyone? Those are your assumptions, Rooster, about what I'm not sure. Are you talking about affirmative action? Which aspects of affirmative action are you talking about? Diversity training in business? Desegregation? Quotas? What?

If you're talking about John Kerry, I don't know where you're getting your information from. I don't know his position on busing, off-hand, but I know he's stated an opposition to quotas and "set-asides." Is there a specific policy he favors that you think is racist, or are you just making assumptions about him?

[Swifty_Johnson]

To bad people of color aren't good enough to be on the Kerry campain staff though.

Swifty

[Kegg OBeer]

All Kerry is trying to do is to get minorities to vote for him. As affirmative action has proved already, government can't make laws to make people "feel" differently. All it can do is make the statistics look better.

Unfortunately, due to things like affirmative action, companies now have quotas to fill when hiring new people, rather than picking the best person for the job. In a large way, this has been a contributing factor to our recession.

And just for the record, I do not see myself as either republican OR democrat. I just have a lot more problems with the way the democrats operate. In fact, I think all politicians should be drawn and quartered and set out for public display.

[Allison]

To bad people of color aren't good enough to be on the Kerry campain staff though.

SwiftySo, you want him to use hiring quotas?

[Kegg OBeer]

No, but it would be nice if he followed his own advice.

[Allison]

And what, exactly is his "own advice?"

[Rooster]

affirmative action needs to be pushed further

[Allison]

affirmative action needs to be pushed furtherIs that your own personal viewpoint? Or are you saying it's Kerry's. If you're claiming the latter, you'd be mistaken.

[Boom]

Whoh, Rooster. I don't think anyone supports affirmative action because they think minorities are inferior and need special help. No wonder you think affirmative action supporters are racists. But your logic is flawed. If I understand you (and please correct me if I don't) your logic is that if someone says blacks need special help they must think they are inferior and therefore they are racist. But try this out instead, If someone says blacks need special help, they think blacks have had it harder because of past racism.

You are being unfair to Kerry by saying he feels minorities are inferior. That is a HUGE leap. Im not a huge fan of Kerry, but I think that's going a little too far. He clearly thinks minorities have been screwed historically and that we are not done fixing the problem. Which is exactly what Bush said in that same article. The only difference is that both Bush and Kerry want to finish fixing the problem by eliminating the remaining racism in our society (a position I praise both of them for taking) while Kerry also thinks affirmative action is needed to finish fixing the problem (a position I am not ready to agree with). Neither of them are saying that anyone is inferior. Neither of them are racist.

People who support affirmative action do so because they feel minorites have been shafted by 400 years of a disgustingly racist society and haven't caught up yet.

Thank God our Country is not one millionth as racist as it was in the past. I am very proud of us for the progress we have made. We deserve a lot of credit. But we haven't reached the end of that road. Blacks have a disproportionatly low representation in the good jobs and stuff. Noone denys it. And noone thinks it is because they are inferior (except the real racist assholes like the KKK). I think we all agree its a leftover effect from past racism.

So how do we fix it? Well, if we aren't being racist now, the problem will correct itself. Since blacks are obviously not inferior, they should start getting those good jobs and stuff. If the problem does not fix itself, we gotta figure out what's going on. I don't have the answer to this, but I'm not convinced its affirmative action.

Rooster, reading this thread, you sound like you have been boiling inside about Kerry and just waiting for him to do something, anything, to give you a reason to explode all over him. You are so angry and stuff. I think you pulled the trigger a little too fast here.

Saying that anyone who supports affirmative action MUST think blacks are inferior is flawed logic. Most supporters of affirmative action ARE black and I assure you they do not think blacks are inferior. Affirmative action may be misguided, it may be wrong, but its goal is to even things out for the sad legacy of racism in our country. Its goal is not to promote racism.

[Noleader]

Booms again you make great points... keep it up bro.

[Boom]

Swifty, I agree that there weren't segregated units in Vietnam, but isn't it possible that a white racist officer could have given his black soldiers more risky assignments then his white ones?

"I need two men to patrol this area crawling with Vietcong. Jones, Washington, you two head out there, the rest of you stay with me."

I'm not saying it necessarily happened. I wasn't there and I haven't done the research. But you are saying it absolutely didn't happen, and you also were not there and haven't done the research. Kerry was there and he is saying it happened. I'm not going to take his word for it because I don't like to rely on just one source for my information, expecially a liberal source (despite your numerous accusations that I believe anything a liberal says). But I certainly think he is more in a position to know what happened there then you are. For now I will say that I honestly don't know what happened in Vietnam, but I am open to the posibility that there was racism in the military, as there was a great deal of racism in the Country as a whole.

And you say he is being misleading because he is implying that blacks were killed in a higher percentage than whites. How is this misleading if its true? Didn't Rooster say this was true?

Are you claiming that in Vietnam blacks were not killed in a higher percentage than whites? Haven't you met your quota today for making these kind of statements without any basis of support? Rooster, would you care to correct Swifty on this? I know that when it comes to military stuff, Rooster is generally pretty good with his facts, so I am more than willing to defer to him on this one.

[Lothar]

Is the problem race?

or is it really religion?

[Grundy]

First off I am against Affirmative Action although its pretty clear to me that when society is unfettered by law the natural flow of human behavior degenerates into discrimination against minorities. But I really dont have a solution for that one.

The affirmative action concept means very different things to many people and the implementation has taken many forms. I view the program as the exection of justice in the form of both a compensation and a remedy like a class action lawsuit on behalf of all those discriminated against in the past, namely racial and ethinic minorites and also women.

While there are many arguments against Affirmative Action, equating Affirmative Action to Racism is a valid one. This is very similar to the argument that Capital Punishment is Murder in that it is wrong because it employs as a tool the very same behavior that society views as unacceptable.

So lets start there:

- Affirmative Action is a form of Racism
- Person X supports Affirmative Action

But it just doesnt follow that Person X views recipients of Affirmative Action as inferior and therefore Person X is a Racist.

So no, Kerry is not racist.

Now it was President Kennedy who first used the phrase, "affirmative action" in an executive order he made in 1961 that stated "affirmatice action should be taken to ensure that job applicants and employees are treated equally without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin."

Certainly you would not suggest Kennedy was a racist as well.

Well lets see...they both are Catholic, wealthy and from Boston.

I changed my mind. Kerry is a racist!

[Rooster]

Boomy, there are tons of things I don't like about Kerry, this is one of them.

Your points about affirmative action do hold some water. However, as Kennedy stated Affirmative Action is wonderful. Those laws are already in place. There are laws on the books to prevent race from playing a part in employment (except for obvious issues - you don't hire a black guy to be a spy in China, duh!).

Once those laws are in place, and a few court cases have gone through the system to show we mean business and it's in step with the Constitution, it will correct itself. But it WILL not correct itself overnight.

Those "good positions" & "good jobs" and stuff, how long does one normally have to be involved in a company to get there? 10, 15, 20 years? It's not going to fix itself overnight. Those jobs that don't take a long time to work up to are already being filled by people of minorities, where applicable (or desirable).

What I don't get is some folks are saying that if white doctors make up X% of the white population, but black doctors make up x-y% of the population, that somehow RACE is the determining factor!! Then they go off on a rampage about how there's so much inequality in the US.

Statement: Breakfast kills.
Proof: Everyone that's eaten breakfast has died.

WTF?

I know a few black friends that have big issues with affirmative action. These guys don't want any special favors, or get a job over a white guy because of a quota the company has to fill... That's totally not fair to them as a person.

As for the war... boomy, I can't get links right now, but in the military, in war, I guarantee color is no object. All men become brothers.

This is not to say you didn't get Billy-Bob KKK McCoy out there commanding a platoon and doing that. But it certainly was not a practice, or even supported.

[Swifty_Johnson]

Swifty, I agree that there weren't segregated units in Vietnam, but isn't it possible that a white racist officer could have given his black soldiers more risky assignments then his white ones?

"I need two men to patrol this area crawling with Vietcong. Jones, Washington, you two head out there, the rest of you stay with me."

You'll also have to understand that there isn't only 2 minorities in the squad, so if the officer is sending minorities off to die, than he'll soon catch one during a firefight.

Also, a few officers getting 1-2 people killed here or there isn't going to make a signifant inpact on the totals.

Are you claiming that in Vietnam blacks were not killed in a higher percentage than whites? Haven't you met your quota today for making these kind of statements without any basis of support? Rooster, would you care to correct Swifty on this?

Put down the crack pipe for once, K? You're starting to look like an idiot.

Kerry is implying that racism lead to more minority casulities, and I took objection to that stance. Please point out one place where I disputed that more minorities died as a percentage of the population? Can't? Than please STFU.

This wasn't casued by racism, more by conditions. Unfortuantly for minorities at that time the best way to a better life was though the military. Unlike Bill Clinton, people of color lacked the ability to run off to another country. They also lacked the ability to get college deferments, as they could not afford college. So if you were poor your were most likely to get drafted, and guess what ethnic groups were the highest percentages of poor people without an eduction in the U.S.A.?

So, we have have a lot of minorities in the U.S. army, many may not even have a high school education. This meant they wound up in the combat units vs the non-combat units.

You know what the army did after Vietnam? Made non-combat roles more available to minorities.

For alittle more information.

http://www.wtev.com/news/national/story.aspx?content_id=0F5FD919-A4C5-4B07-9339-F06E8EFF94A7

Swifty

[Allison]

What I don't get is some folks are saying that if white doctors make up X% of the white population, but black doctors make up x-y% of the population, that somehow RACE is the determining factor!! Then they go off on a rampage about how there's so much inequality in the US.


I agreed with most of what you said in your last post. But what I don't get, and you still haven't explained, is why you have assigned the most extreme viewpoints of affirmative action to John Kerry? It looks like you saw the words "affirmative action" in that article, thought of all the absolute worst cases of it, and then attributed them all to him.

Affirmative Action is a catch-all phrase that means many different things to many different people. For you, it seems to mean strict hiring quotas (which I think I've mentioned Kerry is against). For someone else, it may mean something as harmless as diversity training. It seems that you first assumed that Kerry supports the most extreme in Affirmative Action, and then you further assumed he thinks minorities are inferior, as evidenced by that assumed support.

If you want to argue some of the policies he actually supports, then that's great. But you're being grossly unfair by calling him a racist based simply on the fact that he used the words "affirmative action."

[Eiru]

Roo, where's that forum?

[Allison]

Lol, whatchoo talkin' 'bout, Willis?

[Boom]

LOL, now Swifty is calling me an idiot.

[Boom]

I think I agree with pretty much everything Rooster said about about the problems with affirmative action. I just think saying someone is clearly a racist just because they don't want to roll back affirmative action is a big stretch.

[Boom]

What Kerry is trying to imply is that people of color were killed in a higher percentace than those who were white.... His statement is very misleading.

Please point out one place where I disputed that more minorities died as a percentage of the population? Can't? Than please STFU.

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but you can see how it sounded that way. Perhaps you should be more clear. In the first sentence you say Kerry is misleading for making it sound like a great percentage of blacks were killed and in the second you say you never disputed that more blacks were killed as a percentage and tell me to shut the fuck up. If you are referring to a percentage of the military in the first quote and a percentage of the entire population in the next quote, feel free to clarify, but don't call me a crack smoking idiot for taking your words at face value.

Please calm down. You are getting totally out of line now. Calling me an idiot and telling me to shut the fuck up is not polite debate. It's rude childish behavior. Is this how conservatives argue?

[Boom]

Oh, I just read the link Swifty posted. Very nice link. I am not being sarcastic, I seriously was happy to read that article and have no reason to doubt anything in it. It makes me happy to know that in Iraq we are not having these kinds of problems. Although I have to wonder why it is such a big issue that blacks and whites are dying in representative percentages if it wasn't a problem in the past.

Btw, I never claimed that blacks and whites didn't die in equal proportions in Vietnam. I clearly said that I haven't done the research and would defer to whatever Rooster said. My point was that Swifty didn't seem to understand how it could be true. Rooster did, with his Billy-Bob example. Oh, and I absolutely agree with Rooster that it definitely was not supported by military policy. I'm just saying that I think that was what Kerry was referring to as a concern. White racist officers in Vietnam abusing their positions AGAINST military policy to put their black soldiers at risk. Even Rooster says he is sure that must have happened to some extent. Swifty is saying Rooster is wrong. And Kerry is just saying what Rooster said, except Kerry seems to be implying that it happened a lot while Rooster is saying it wasn't a common practice. I am not claiming to know either way, so I can't be wrong. But what does it matter what I think, I am a crack smoking idiot who needs to shut the fuck up.

[Swifty_Johnson]

My point was that Swifty didn't seem to understand how it could be true. Rooster did, with his Billy-Bob example.

I did understand how it could happen, but you have to understand to skew the statistics there would have to a a lot of officers getting minority troops killed, a few here and there isn't going to make a signifant impact on the overall accounting when 58,000 people died.

If you go back and look at some of the inital protests to the war by civil rights leaders, they claim the Vietnam war was sending to many poor people into the conflict as they lacked the ability to get college deferments.

Swifty

[Swifty_Johnson]

Perhaps I misunderstood your point, but you can see how it sounded that way. Perhaps you should be more clear.

Opps, you are right (for once) I wasn't as clear as I wanted to be, my bad.

I've been on the edge alittle lately.

Swifty

[Rooster]

I agree that it's probably a little antagonistic to call Kerry a racist...

But, if you support a racist agenda, how is the logic flawed? You can say "not neccessarily".. and that's true, but in some cases... it's obvious.

Fictional Law #312: "All black students grades will be subject to a different scale than whites"

If you support law #312... how does that NOT make you racist? (Not in the ugly, gnasty, KKK type racism)

[Allison]

Fictional Law #312: "All black students grades will be subject to a different scale than whites"

If you support law #312... how does that NOT make you racist? (Not in the ugly, gnasty, KKK type racism)
I think we'd better define our terms. When I use the word "racism," applied to an individual, I'm using it to describe that person's belief in an inherent inferiority (or superiority) within a race of people. When I'm talking about how I believe a policy is unfairly prejudiced toward a race of people, I use the term "racial discrimimination." But, someone can support what I believe to be a racist policy (racial discrimination) without actually being a racist.

In your example, for instance ... you claim that fictional Law #312 is racist because it is unfairly prejudiced (Yes, I know it's redunant. But I want to stress the word "unfair." ) toward a race of people. Fair enough. But, making an assumption about why Person X would support that law is a prejudice all your own. Maybe Person X believes that blacks haven't been given the same educational opportunities, and that a few good grades will encourage them to reach their potential. Maybe she does believe it's an unfair policy, but it's a temporary measure that's necessary in the current political environment. Maybe if she doesn't support it, she'll lose her job, and she thinks it more important to "fight the system" from the inside. Maybe she's just misinformed about the policy. There could be any number of reasons why she would support it, and you can argue against the validity of any of those reasons. But none of them necessarily have to include the fact that she thinks blacks are inferior.

Your inference is this:
1. Law #312 is racist.
2. Person X supports Law #312.
3. Therefore, Person X is a racist.

But that logic is as flawed as if I said:
1. America is at war.
2. Person Y supports the war.
3. Therefore, Person Y likes war.

In both examples, 1 and 2 may be true, but 3 is an unfair inference that doesn't take into account other possible motivations.

[Boom]

When you call someone a racist it brings up images of Nazis and KKK and people who want to kill the "Jews and Niggers" and give America back to the white people.

Those are racists. Racists HATE minorities and want to hurt them. If someone thinks minorities need special assistance in some aspects of society they may wrong, they may be total dumbasses. But they aren't racists.

I know you didn't mean that Kerry was that kind of Racist, the bad HATING kind of racist. But that is the connotation the word carries these days. Even if the literal definition of racist is something like "one who looks at race as an issue" or something more innocent, the common, on the street, meaning of racist is HATRED.

And for your example. You are assuming (and its a pretty wild assumption) that the person is supporting the law because he thinks blacks are inferior. Just like you are assuming that Kerry thinks blacks are inferior. I don't think that is a fair assumption. I gave you before another possible explanation. What if someone thinks that Blacks still have it tougher because of residual effects of 400 years of racism and that they need extra help to compensate against these residual effects? I think that is what most (if not ALL) people who support affirmative action think. Again, please don't get sidetracked and argue this with me because I do NOT personally support this. So no reason to go off on how wrong I am for thinking blacks need more help. It is not my position. I am just saying that the people who do support affirmative action, do not think blacks are inferior, they just think blacks still have it tougher despite all the progress we have made against racism, and that society should do something to even things out. They may be totally off base. They may be flat out wrong. But they do NOT think blacks are inferior.

[Badger]

I fail to see where in the US Constitution that the Federal Government should be paying for education. And have a penal code to punish parents if their kids dont go. There is no accountability in education, until Bush came along, now the socialists are screaming about NCLB since they might loose their tax dollar gravy. Public schools almost ALL suck. Shut them down, give the tax dollars back to parents and let us send our kids to schools we choose. That does two things.

1. Forces schools to have a strong curriculum or loose money.
2. Gets the sicko socialists out of our lives and our childrens lives.

NEA = Un-American commies.

As for Kerry being racist? I believe the (current) Democratic party is a racist as a whole, they treat minorities (if you want to label them) as free votes, they treat them like shit, keep them poor and tied to the Federal gravy train. Affimative action is a blatent slap in the face of minorities, telling them they dont have what it takes to do it on their own.

I would rather see our black and brown fellows work hard and do well for themselves, making a good living. Not riding the discrimination train forever.

Dr King would be beside himself with the crap put out by the NAACP and black leaders today. And Hispanics are a good stong people, my best friend growing up was Mexican, and his parents were great people. However the socialist activists and their multi-culturalism sets all of these kids up for failure...english as a second language etc.

[Rooster]

Well heck boomy, when you agree with me, I dont get to make a long drawn out post.

As for your reasoning, I can agree with that.

[Boom]

Think of it this way. You adopt 2 children both 10 years old. Same race and everything. You talk to them, you play with them, and you think they are both very intelligent. In fact you think they are identically intelligent. Then as you are preparing them for school you find out that one of them was going to an excellent school before you adopted him and he starts getting great grades. The second child never went to school and starts flunking out.

So you get a tutor for the second child.

Your neighbor comes over and says, "I see you have a tutor for the second child, you must think he is dumber (inferior) than the first child."

You say, "Nonono, in fact I think they are equally intelligent. Its just that the second child hasn't has the opportunities that the first child has, so he needs some extra help to get up to speed."

Your neighbor says, "I see two boys. You think one needs a tutor, you think the other doesn't. Obviously you are discriminating between the two, obviously you think one is better than the other, there is no other possible explanation."

You say, "No, seriously, it has nothing to do with their inherent god-given qualities. They are equal. I promise you, I think they are equal. They just were both treated very differently by society before they got to me and I want to even them out."

Your neighbor says, "I'm not following you. You treat them differently, you must view them differently. You are discriminating. That's not cool."

You see what I am getting at here Rooster? And again, I fear this will lead to another tangential discussion, so although I have said it a number of times, I want to say it again. I DON'T necessarily think this is right. I DON'T necessarily think society should be treating blacks differently to "make up" for past injustices. I don't think my little story is a perfect analogy, and that, like the second child, blacks have necessarily haven't had the same opportunities as whites and therefore are deserving of special help. I'm not saying that at all. But I think that is what affirmative action supporters are saying. They may be incorrect, (or they may not be incorrect, its incredibly complicated sociological issue). But their motivations are not based on thinking blacks are inferior, their motivations are based on thinking that blacks have it tougher.

Another analogy. You are at the top of a cliff. You see two men climbing up the cliff towards you. One is wearing a 100 pound backpack, the other is not. They both reach you at the same time. You decide to lean over the edge of the cliff and reach out your hand and help one up over the crest. Which one do you help? You help the one with the 100 pound backpack. Affirmative action supporters are saying that black people are making their way through the job market with 100 pound backpacks while white people have no backpacks. Now here is the key to this analogy. You think that affirmative action supporters are saying that these backbacks are filled with black people's inferiority. That's why you think they are racist, because they think black people are held back by 100 pounds of inferiority. But that is not what they are saying, they are saying that these backpacks are filled with the residual effects of past racism.

[Boom]

Well heck boomy, when you agree with me, I dont get to make a long drawn out post.

Well, when you have a perfectly reasonable position (affirmative action does not seem fair, and there must be a better solution), how can I help but agree with you?

And now I made that last whole huge post for nothing since you snuck in and said you see my reasoning on it. :p But I like my cute little analogies in there. :D

[Badger]

If you think Blacks have this extra inferiority, then you are racist.

Because you think they are inferior. And thats the EXACT thing they all complain about. Until they want their free gravy, well not ALL of them are like this, but most of those who are self-reliant are conservative Christians, not athiest criminals. I grew up in poor areas with lots of poor blacks. I've seen it first hand.

[Popo]

Could the following logical conclusion not be drawn?

You feel that a minority requires special treatment to compete therefore they are inferior.
Minority schools require more money because minorities do not learn as quickly.
We must FORCE integration of schools and bus majority race students to minority based schools because it's proven minority students learn better when amongst majority students.



uhhhhhhhhhhh.................................... Why/how am I inferior again??

<-----(Mexican)

[Badger]

Thats a question you should be asking the Democrats Popo. They are the ones perpetuating this racism in order to get votes and power.

[Boom]

If you think Blacks have this extra inferiority, then you are racist.

Because you think they are inferior.

Are you talking to me? Please reread my posts. I don't see how I possibly could have been clearer, but apparently you misread every single word I posted.

[Rooster]

uhhhhhhhhhhh.................................... Why/how am I inferior again??

<-----(Mexican)Those aren't my feelings popo.

[Boom]

They aren't ANYONE'S feelings. Some people sometimes think that supporters of affirmative action think that way.

[Grundy]

Badger,

I am trying to understand more of your position on this. Which one of these statements is closer to your position?

1. Programs such as Affirmative Action, although well intensioned as a system of compenstation for minorities and women actually do more harm than good. This system is based on the belief that people should not be discriminated against soley on the basis of race, religion, sex etc.

or

2. Programs such as Affirmative Action are part of a conspiracy by politicians to deceive program recipients into thinking they are not capable individuals. This system is based on the belief that minorities and women are perfectly capable of success without it but infact will vote for the party that is perceived to offer the biggest incentives.

[Boom]

Neither of those statements contains enough disgust and hostility to possibly be Badger's position.