Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 7:29 PM:
1-Appears that the old Confederate Flag that has flown above the state capitol grounds of SC is about to be removed
2-A St. Louis group called the Council of Conservative Citizens is under attack for posting stats about black on white crime to counter the claim that blacks are targeted by whites as the only problem. Apparently Dylan Roof googled "black on white crime" and up came the Council of Conservative Citizens web site and he used information from that site in his "manifesto". The Southern Poverty Law Center branded this group as a "hate group" in 1990.
A lunatic murderer kills 9 innocent people and the world must rush to kill symbols and facts to make everyone feel better.
Is it racist to post black on white crime statistics? Is the confederate flag racist?
Replies (877)
No, this is not about being "racist".
A problem occurs when a symbol is intentionally used to be offensive and ignite rage. If a policy can be adopted to prevent such behavior which leads to violence, that would be a good thing.
"old Confederate Flag" It is my understanding that the flag in question is the Confederate battle flag, which is the one with a blue X rather than the one with a circle. Yes, it is apart of history, but IMO most that display the confederate flag do so with the intent to express hatred.
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:12 PM
I rather think they do it to express pride in their heritage. It is seen more as a symbol of taking a stand against tyranny than a stand for racism (or slavery).
This has been discussed at length in other threads.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:16 PM
Neither is racist.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:17 PM
The interesting part of this is the media and it's treatment of subjects.
The Souther Poverty Law Center branded this group a "hate group" for posting statistics about black on white crime. Dylan Roof referenced the statistics and the site in his manifesto. Now the group is under attack.
Curiously, in 2012 Floyd Corkins stormed the Family Research Council headquarters in Washington DC and shot the place up, hoping to kill as many christians as he could. From FBI interrogation footage Corkins explained to FBI interrogators that he used the Southern Poverty Law Center's list to find his target.
===
One murderer references a conservative site in his manifesto and the group is attacked.
Another murderer references the liberal SPLC site in his interrogation and.... crickets?
Double standard here?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:22 PM
The Souther Poverty Law Center branded this group a "hate group" for posting statistics about black on white crime.-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:22 PM
One question: Is a list of statistics regarding black on white crimes the only thing that exists on this website?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:39 PM
No. Here are some more things:
"CofCC deeply saddened by Charleston spree killing"
"Protester calls for race war near the scene of Charleston massacre"
"Adrian Lester found guilty in racial hate crime shooting spree"
"Farrakhan calls for violent revolution to create black homeland"
"Tracking Chicago's Gun Free Bloodbath - 203 homicides with few arrests so far in 2015"
"Obama shamelessly uses atrocity to call for gun ban - Why no calls for bans on SSRI drugs?"
===
They oppose the massive immigration of "non European" peoples.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:46 PM
Some are just not happy till they find something to offended by.
Did ya notice the General Lee in the Auto Trader ads has nothing on the roof?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 9:52 PM
It does seem everything now days is knee jerk reaction. I'm just glad all the big bucks are being spent to give Florissant Road a makeover.
Also glad to hear the president address all the racism he and his friends have stirred up by using the redefined word now dedicated to be witness to the confession of racism only when heard coming from other than a black person.
I understand what he was trying to say which is it is not time yet move on from wrongs of two hundred years past.
The federal government has passed every law possible to make all Americans equal in opportunity, freedom and protection from social indignity and suppression of God given rights.
Give the murderer a speedy trial and execution and let the press find something else to focus on.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 10:49 PM
I wondered how long it would take for these retards to defend a symbol of racism. Actually a little longer than I expected.
-- Posted by left turn on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 11:10 PM
They oppose the massive immigration of "non European" peoples.
-- Posted by Dug on Mon, Jun 22, 2015, at 8:46 PM
Ahhhh...don't you think that's more likely the reason they are considered a hate group than "for posting statistics about black on white crime."?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:34 AM
PLEASE, can't this wait until these innocent people have their burials? This should be a week of peace, not disagreement. Show some respect.
-- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:01 AM
"So much for the pride in heritage misnomer..."
How do you figure that? People take pride in battle insignia all the time. As our lengthy discussion on another thread noted, whatever the reasons for secession, the war itself was fought over the states' right of self-determination. That remains a source of pride to many.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:35 AM
"Ahhhh...don't you think that's more likely the reason they are considered a hate group than "for posting statistics about black on white crime."?"
So having a different view than the SPLC regarding race constitutes "hate"? I always thought "hate" required some sort of suggestion of violence or oppression.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:39 AM
So having a different view than the SPLC regarding race constitutes "hate"?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:39 AM
What? Where did you get that from? It's very clear I suggested the reason the SLPC considers them a hate group was because "They oppose the massive immigration of "non European" peoples."
That's not "having a different view regarding race". That's actively opposing the immigration of certain peoples to our country based on race.
I always thought "hate" required some sort of suggestion of violence or oppression.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:39 AM
I'm not sure why you thought that; that's not what "hate" is.
More to the point, the SLPC makes clear that "Listing here does not imply a group advocates or engages in violence or other criminal activity." http://www.splcenter.org/hate-map
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:46 AM
Is the SPLC a "hate" group since they listed the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate" group and another killer went there - based on the SPLC listing - and tried to kill as many Christians as he could? He killed one and was ready to kill many more.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:55 AM
Is the SPLC a "hate" group since they listed the conservative Family Research Council as a "hate" group and another killer went there - based on the SPLC listing - and tried to kill as many Christians as he could? He killed one and was ready to kill many more.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:55 AM
No.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:00 AM
"Where the FBI has found hate crimes and hate groups declining significantly in the past ten years, SPLC claims hate groups have increased 67.3% since 2000."
"Where once SPLC's hate list was reserved for groups like the Aryan Nation and the KKK, in 2010 SPLC started citing as hate groups those Christian groups that oppose same-sex marriage or believe homosexuality is not inborn."
===
I think the Souther Poverty Law Center is "hating".
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:18 AM
"That's actively opposing the immigration of certain peoples to our country based on race."
That is still not the same thing as hate. It is a race-based position, to be sure, but does not equal "hate":
"a : intense hostility and aversion usually deriving from fear, anger, or sense of injury
"b : extreme dislike or antipathy : loathing "
____________
There have been, over the centuries, many policies that are based on racial prejudices which do not amount to hatred.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:28 AM
I think the Souther Poverty Law Center is "hating".
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:18 AM
Of course you do.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:30 AM
A lot of people think the US Flag is a racist symbol including the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Should it be taken off Government buildings?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:30 AM
The SPLC makes a lot of money from its denouncing of "hatred". They have expanded their list over the years to include many things with which they simply disagree.
Suggestions of policy based on race or other factors does not automatically equate to 'hatred', except in the eyes of those who see hatred around every corner, and who make a living denouncing it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:32 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:28 AM
This is why "the race card gets played" so often.
You're seriously defending racists and trying to claim they are not hateful.
Racism is alive and well in the U.S. manifested in the horrific behavior of Dylan Hood, but also in the more subtle behavior of people like Dug and Shapley Hunter who jump at the opportunity to oppose those who point out the hatred.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:34 AM
Suggestions of policy based on race or other factors does not automatically equate to 'hatred',
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:32 AM
What?
You can't be serious!
Please, give me an example of a non-hate-based racial policy suggestion.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:36 AM
Suggestions of policy based on race or other factors does not automatically equate to 'hatred',
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:32 AM
What?
You can't be serious!
Please, give me an example of a non-hate-based racial policy suggestion.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:36 AM
"Last August a 28-year-old gay-rights volunteer named Floyd Corkins entered the office lobby of the Family Research Council (FRC), a Christian traditional-values group headquartered in Washington that condemns homosexual conduct and opposes same-sex marriage. Corkins took a gun from his backpack and fired three shots at building manager Leo Johnson, one of them wounding the unarmed Johnson in the arm before he wrested the gun from Corkins. On February 6 Corkins pleaded guilty to three felonies: committing an act of terrorism while armed, interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition (he had bought the weapon in Virginia), and assault with intent to kill while armed. He faces a sentencing hearing on April 29 that could include up to 70 years in prison. According to federal prosecutors' statements in court documents, Corkins told investigators that he had intended to kill Johnson and numerous other FRC employees. His backpack contained 15 sandwiches from the fast-food chain Chick-fil-A, whose founder, S. Truett Cathy, contributed through his family foundation to several organizations opposed to gay marriage, including the FRC. According to prosecutors, Corkins said he had planned to smear the faces of the dead FRC employees with the sandwiches once his shooting spree ended.
"Corkins found out about the FRC from the ever-expanding (at least in recent years) list of "hate groups" tracked on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a civil-rights behemoth bursting with donor cash headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. Cofounded in 1971 by Morris S. Dees Jr. and Joseph Levin Jr. (who is now general counsel), the SPLC started out fighting legal battles against lingering segregation in the South. More recently--and more lucratively, its critics say--it has transformed itself into an all-purpose antihate crusader, labeling 1,007 different organizations across America at last count as "anti-gay," "white nationalist," "anti-Muslim," "anti-immigrant," or just plain hateful (one SPLC category is "general hate"). The SPLC put the FRC on its list of "anti-gay" organizations in 2010, and the SPLC's "Hate Map" page, whose banner displays men in Nazi-style helmets giving Sieg Heil salutes, lists the FRC among 14 hate groups headquartered in the District of Columbia. The Hate Map doesn't include the groups' street addresses, but those typically take only a few seconds to find with Google. Besides the chicken sandwiches and some 50 rounds of ammunition found on Corkins's person was the address of the Traditional Values Coalition, another D.C.-based "anti-gay" group listed on the SPLC's Hate Map.
"At the time of the shooting, FRC president Tony Perkins lost no time doing a sort of reverse Sarah Palin on the SPLC. Liberal columnists and bloggers had blamed Palin--"blood is on [her] hands," wrote one--for the near-fatal shooting of former Arizona representative Gabrielle Giffords near Tucson in 2011 because Palin had earlier placed Giffords on a "target list" of House Democrats to be defeated for reelection. (The Tucson gunman, Jared Lee Loughner, who killed six people in the crowd at Giffords's event, turned out to be a schizophrenic whose politics, insofar as they could be determined, leaned left.) "The Southern Poverty Law Center is dangerous," Perkins declared on his nightly radio show on February 6. "They are inciting hatred, and in this case a clear connection to violence. They need to be held accountable, and they need to be stopped before people are killed because of their reckless labeling and advocacy for homosexuality and their anti-Christian stance."
"Of course, it was as ridiculous to blame the SPLC for Corkins's rampage as it had been to blame Palin for Loughner's. Still, there was a delicious irony to savor: The "anti-hate" SPLC had unwittingly revved up someone who carried out an act that was unequivocally a hate crime: a potentially murderous vendetta against a group of people predicated solely on the religious and political views that they happened to hold.
"Irony turns out to be what the SPLC is all about. Thanks to the generosity of four decades' worth of donors, many of whom--as SPLC president Richard Cohen himself noted in a telephone interview with me--are aging Northern-state "1960s liberals" who continue to associate "Southern" and "poverty" with lynchings, white-hooded Klansmen, and sitting at the back of the bus, and thanks also to what can only be described as the sheer genius at direct-mail marketing of Dees, the SPLC's 76-year-old lawyer-founder, who was already a multimillionaire by the late 1960s from the direct-mail sales of everything from doormats to cookbooks, the SPLC is probably the richest poverty organization in the history of the world. From its very beginning the SPLC, thanks to Dees's talent for crafting multi-page alarmist fundraising letters, has not only continuously operated in the black, but has steadily accumulated a mountain of surpluses augmented by a shrewdly managed investment portfolio. Today the SPLC's net assets total more than $256 million (that figure appears on the SPLC's 2011 tax return, the latest posted on the organization's website). That represented a more-than-doubling of the $120 million in net assets that the SPLC reported in 2000, which was itself more than a doubling of the $52 million in net assets that the SPLC reported during the mid-1990s."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:39 AM
"Please, give me an example of a non-hate-based racial policy suggestion."
Affirmative Action?
How about efforts to curtail Asian investment in the United States? Is it not possible that such efforts are driven by a desire to reduce the influence of that part of the world on our market and our economy? Or do you believe it is because they are Asian, and that people who want to curtail their investment hate Asians?
In the 1970s, there were efforts to impose restrictions on Middle-Eastern investment, again because they regarded the influence of Middle Eastern oil to be skewing our economy.
Efforts have been imposed to reduce immigration from various regions over the years. Surely you don't believe all these were the result of "hatred"? Do you not believe there can be legitimate, or at least perceived to be legitimate, concerns that are based on race that have nothing to do with hatred? Is your thinking that limited?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Is your thinking that limited?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:45 AM
Yes, my thinking is limited. I can not think that racism is legitimate.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:57 AM
SH & Dug
What you aren't getting is that everything that Leftists consider a hate group is a hate group. That is the way it works in our little politically correct world today.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:02 AM
"Yes, my thinking is limited. I can not think that racism is legitimate."
I didn't say it was legitimate, I said it was not hate.
But I'm glad to see you oppose Affirmative Action. I do, too. It is race-based and runs counter to what it claims to do. But I disagree that it is based on hatred. Do you think it is?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:21 AM
Well, okay, I did use the word "legitimate", but I also said "perceived to be legitimate", which is to say that the person holding that view sees it as such without it being based on hatred.
That is the difference, I suppose, between you and I. I accept that there are legitimate views which I do not hold. I do not expect the world to agree with me, and I do not believe that everyone who does not agree with me is holding illegitimate views.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:24 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:21 AM
I do not oppose affirmative action. Of course, you know as well as I do it's not race based, but rather concerns all groups that have been historically underrepresented (unless you're under the impression women are a race).
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:29 AM
That is the difference, I suppose, between you and I. I accept that there are legitimate views which I do not hold. I do not expect the world to agree with me, and I do not believe that everyone who does not agree with me is holding illegitimate views.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:24 AM
There are legitimate views I do not hold, and your attempt to say that I think otherwise shows the weakness of your argument.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Please, give me an example of a non-hate-based racial policy suggestion. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 8:36 AM
How about "Black History Month"?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:50 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:50 AM
Fair enough.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:52 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:52 AM
To expand, I will concede that it is possible to consider race in a non-hateful way.
Now, can someone give me a non-hate-based reason the CofCC is against "non-European" immigration.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:56 AM
Now here's a gem for you - A Utah minor league baseball team was going to hold a "Caucasian Heritage" night at the ball park.
Is that racist? They had to cancel it due to the backlash. Sounds like the racists were in full form in protesting against this event?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:57 AM
"Now, can someone give me a non-hate-based reason the CofCC is against "non-European" immigration."
You are asking those of us who are not members of the CofCC to explain their positions? Sorry. Methinks that would be akin to asking me to explain the moral justification of Socialism.
The onus, however, is on those who brand it "hate based" to prove it so, not the other way around. There does not appear to be anything in their position that indicates that it is founded on hate.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 10:52 AM
"Of course, you know as well as I do it's not race based, but rather concerns all groups that have been historically underrepresented (unless you're under the impression women are a race)."
I know no such thing. It was originally founded based on race, and was only expanded to included women as a protected category years later. Some minorities protested the move (as did the majority) because women are neither a race nor a minority.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 10:54 AM
"Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965, established requirements for non-discriminatory practices in hiring and employment on the part of U.S. government contractors. It "prohibits federal contractors and federally assisted construction contractors and subcontractors, who do over $10,000 in Government business in one year from discriminating in employment decisions on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."[1] It also requires contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin." The phrase affirmative action had appeared previously in Executive Order 10925 in 1961."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 10:55 AM
My point is simply that merely promoting a race-based policy does not make one a "hate group". I've never heard of the CofCC, but I hardly think the posting of statistics of black-on-white crime constitutes hatred, assuming the postings were accurate.
Methinks the definition of "hate" has been so broadened, incorrectly, of late as a means to shut down discussion of legitimate issues, just as we see with the constant cry of "racist!", "sexist!", "homophobe!", etc.
It shows the weakness of the argument, so to speak.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM
Well said. And my point of this thread along with the leftist bias.
What I believe is most amazing is the caving in that organizations and individuals do when they are accused of the slightest thing that in many cases is 100% false. That's why I threw in the link to the Utah baseball team.
Curious I've gotten no answers from the leftists on here about "Caucasian Heritage" night at the ballpark.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:08 AM
If I kill 9 people at the Family Research Council offices and I'm found to be wrapped in an LGBT flag should the LGBT flag be banned and taken down everywhere? Should it be considered a symbol of "hate"?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:10 AM
My point is simply that merely promoting a race-based policy does not make one a "hate group".-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM
And I've agreed with that much.
I've never heard of the CofCC, but I hardly think the posting of statistics of black-on-white crime constitutes hatred, assuming the postings were accurate.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:04 AM
They do more than post statistics. Remember, "They oppose the massive immigration of "non European" peoples."
This whole discussion is silly. There is no question the CofCC is a hate group. From their Statement of Principles, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind...and to force the integration of the races."
If you think calling that statement hateful "broadens the definition of hate", then your definition of hate was far too narrow to begin with.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:25 AM
"....here about "Caucasian Heritage" night..."
One wouldn't believe that there would be enough Azerbaijanis or Armenians out there to make it worthwhile.
Why would they not just have a Mormon Heritage night?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:03 PM
"The Owlz are a minor league farm team for the Los Angeles Angels."
Whatever that means.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind...and to force the integration of the races."
"...to force..."
Key words, methinks. Forced integration, forced segregation, opposing the use of force does not striike me as "hate".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM
One would think a good conservative would leave Utah's baseball team and their nights, up to the state of Utah. -- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:41 PM
Apparently "conservatives" aren't the problem. Unfortunately the liberals exhibited their "hate" towards the event that night and it got cancelled.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:56 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:59 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:51 PM
Why did you ignore the "key words" at the beginning of the quote? ""We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind"
They're a racist group. They make it clear they look down on non-European-Americans and post statistics that they believe support that belief.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:01 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:59 PM
Why did you post that editorialized take on the column rather than linking directly to the column itself?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:22 PM
They're a racist group. They make it clear they look down on non-European-Americans and post statistics that they believe support that belief. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:01 PM
Does the NAACP promote all races or just one? Do they look down on other races? If so, then are they racist based on *your* definition of the word?
Careful...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:24 PM
Does the NAACP promote all races or just one?-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:24 PM
All races.
Do they look down on other races?
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:24 PM
No.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:26 PM
Lol...poor little Mickey.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:40 PM
No. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:26 PM
The founder of the NAACP - W.E.B. DuBouis - called for a plan that "will involve increased segregation and perhaps migration" for African Americans. "I fight segregation with segregation." He also made a trip to Nazi Germany in 1936 that resulted in him writing "The German Case against Jews," where he excused German anti-Semitism as a "reasoned prejudice".
===
When Al Gore selected Joe Lieberman as his running mate in 2000, Dallas NAACP chapter head Lee Alcorn responded with alarm that a Jewish American had been selected on a national ticket. "I'm concerned about, you know, any kind of Jewish candidate".
===
Julian Bond, chairman of the NAACP from 1998 to 2000, said "America morphs into a place where white supremacy is everywhere."
===
Van Jones received the NAACP's "President Award" after saying that only whites shoot up schools and implies that only whites go on these type of shooting sprees like Columbine when, in fact, that is a lie.
===
The NAACP has never condemned Louis Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam for his constant racist statements about white people and Jews. In fact, they invite him to their conferences to speak and participate in meetings.
===
The NAACP does look down on other races. You need to take off the blinders. Now I see why you play that card so often - to you there is never such a thing as racism against whites.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:43 PM
"Do they look down on other races?"
Of course not, apparently you weren't aware that there was even a white woman that was head of the NAACP branch in Spokane.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:48 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:48 PM
That means nothing...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:54 PM
Theorist, what in the hell is "white privilege"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:13 PM
Theorist, I'll ask you the question again...What in the hell is "white privilege"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:24 PM
apparently you weren't aware that there was even a white woman that was head of the NAACP branch in Spokane. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 1:48 PM
Apparently you didn't even know that she was the head of that branch only when she disguised the fact that she was white. When her "whiteness" came out she had to resign.
Thanks for making my very strong point.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:29 PM
I'll ask you the question again...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:24 PM
What was wrong with her first answer?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:32 PM
Shouldn't that be discrimination Dug?...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:37 PM
"...she disguised the fact that she was white."
And you're na*ve enough to believe that no one was aware of her actual race. Furthermore, she was not forced to resign.
That you would suggest that the NAACP "looks down" on all other races is just ludicrous (and if I weren't so polite I'd say "just dumb."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:38 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:32 PM
Because that wasn't an answer....Are you Theorist's mouthpiece now?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:39 PM
Absolutely BonScott. When her "whiteness" was discovered she was dumped.
And now we have miccheck telling us that the NAACP doesn't look down on other races despite the wealth of evidence.
And then you have Theorist telling us that "white privilege" is something white people get at birth. Barack Obama is the ultimate beneficiary of "black privilege".
===
The liberal leftist talking points are out today. Empty - purely empty.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:40 PM
Furthermore, she was not forced to resign. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:38 PM
Talk about just dumb. Tell us why she resigned? This ought to be worth about 10 super-spin posts from you. Put up Common.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:41 PM
Because that wasn't an answer.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:39 PM
How so? Sure, it was brief, but she gave a perfectly legitimate answer to the question.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:44 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:44 PM
No she didn't mouthpiece...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:47 PM
No she didn't mouthpiece...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:47 PM
Ummmm...
.basically it is the privilege a white person has, simply because they're white...
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:18 PM
I'll accept your apology now.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:52 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:52 PM
Since you stuck your nose in it mouthpiece, I'll ask you the question....What privilege does one get for being "white"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:56 PM
"Tell us why she resigned?"
She chose to. Send her an e-mail if you really want to know.
If you'd rather not, just believe whatever makes you happy.
Be glad to help you with another two of your mistakes, as I know you meant to say "dearth of evidence."
And if you don't or can't understand the concept of "white privilege" then you truly are beyond hope.
Maybe it would help if you were able to realistically disguise yourself as a black American, so you could fully reap all these benefits of "black privilege" that you have so readily created in you warped imagination.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:06 PM
""Angry" is how Spokane NAACP activist and member Kitara Johnson felt after watching Rachel Dolezal's interview on the Today show Tuesday morning. Johnson started a petition to have Dolezal step down as president of the Spokane NAACP"
===
Leaders with the Spokane NAACP held a press conference Friday at 1:00 p.m. to talk about their future in the wake of the Rachel Dolezal controversy.
"They said that there is a lot of anger in the community over the controversy."
"We as an executive board understand there's lot of hurt, a sense of distrust, we as an organization want to rebuild that trust," said leaders.
===
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:10 PM
What privilege does one get for being "white"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:56 PM
There are lots. They see people of their race represented in every facet of society. They can be almost assured of not being denied a house rental based on their race. They are not expected to be a representative for their race. They can be successful without people claiming you received preferential treatment because of their race. They are less likely to be pulled over by police officers.
The list goes on an on. White privilege is a very complex, though, and if you refuse to find out on your own what it is, then I'm afraid this discussion is pointless.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:12 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:06 PM
Maybe you can answer the question common, since the other two house "liberals" apparently are to scared....What privilege does one get for being "white"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:14 PM
She still resigned.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:21 PM
White privilege=being able to say everything I listed in my 3:12 pm post is "completely made up or 100% opinion".
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:28 PM
Theo, I don't need to research it....
Mickey, good luck with your false guilt. It's a true sign of weakness...Now I know why you got picked last in kickball.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:33 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:33 PM
Who's guilty? Recognizing the advantages I have does not mean I feel guilty for receiving those advantages.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:43 PM
White privilege, sounds like a racist comment to me by a Liberal no doubt.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 4:05 PM
An explanation of privilege and a rationale for affirmative action:
The thread about the $10 bill got me thinking. Right now, all of our bills in regular use are U.S. Presidents, with the exception of Hamilton (Secretary of the Treasury) and Franklin (statesman and founding father). All are white men.
That's an example of privilege; having someone with your skin color on U.S. money.
One can argue that it's perfectly fair that all are white guys because that's all that fit the (unwritten) criteria. There hasn't been a black president or cabinet member (assuming someone has to be deceased to be on money). Obviously none were founding fathers.
Does that mean no black men were qualified? Of course not. However, even though black men could vote in the 1860s, starting in the late 19th century many were once again being held back by Jim Crow laws. Until the past 50 years or so, black men simply didn't have a chance to be president or on the cabinet.
So, if we wanted to put a black man on our money, we could look at Martin Luther King, Jr. or George Washington Carver, for example. Are they at the same level as a U.S. president? No. But is we say being the U.S. president is criterion for being on money, the playing field isn't level; white men have the same advantage they've had for years.
By judging black men based on appropriate criteria, we're giving them a chance to "succeed" alongside white men.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:13 PM
She still resigned. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 3:21 PM
And you and your friends have been wrong.
First - the NAACP looks down on other races. I've proven that.
Second - I said she resigned after her whiteness was exposed. You said she wasn't forced to resign. I showed you where you were wrong.
White privilege is a far-left lie to discount the success of people who are white. It's racist. It's another "you didn't build that" statement to claim that any success a white person has was do to someone giving them everything and sending a message that white people aren't capable of achieving anything on their own. It's a lie - and it's a big example of racists.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:15 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:13 PM
That may be the biggest load of crap I've read on SpeakOut in a long time....
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:31 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:31 PM
Do you care to be more specific about your objections?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:34 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:31 PM
Do you care to be more specific about your objections?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:34 PM
Nope. You gave Theo a pass, so that should be sufficient.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:58 PM
You gave Theo a pass, so that should be sufficient.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 5:58 PM
Gave "Theo" a pass on what?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:03 PM
Never in my life have I received special "privileges" for being "white"....
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:24 PM
Then I'd suggest that you're actually black or red or yellow.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:32 PM
White privilege must have to do with the White Republican Caucus. :)
Giving minorities such as women that outnumber men and affirmative action to nonwhite people makes a statement confirming liberals thinking they are inferior.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:32 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:24 PM
How do you know?
How do you know the reason the cop didn't pull you over for going 59 in a 55 mph zone is because of your race?
How do you know the reason the were able to rent or purchase your home wasn't because the seller/landlord preferred that you were white?
Have you ever watched TV and noticed that almost none of the characters on any show look like you or your family?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:33 PM
Have you ever watched TV and noticed that almost none of the characters on any show look like you or your family? -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:33 PM
Seriously? Unbelievable that you would even suggest such a thing. A credibility problem. Who would believe that?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM
Who would believe that?
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:42 PM
Who would believe what?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:54 PM
I did not know the SPLC had a list of hate groups and individuals. Kinda scanned through it and I must have missed groups like The New Black Panthers,Louis Farrakhan and his bunch,Jeremiah Wright or the biggest hater,Nazi collaborator obama puppet master ,George Soros. Is the SPLC discriminating?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:56 PM
It appears a few reasonable individuals agree that this symbol now stands for hatred and it is time that changes need to be made.
ie Wal-Mart, Sears, Amazon, South Carolina, Mississippi, Google, Ebay, Etsy
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:57 PM
Then I'd suggest that you're actually black or red or yellow.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:32 PM
Then I'd suggest you have NO idea what you're talking about..."white privilege" is another made up propaganda scheme that you "liberals" have bought hook, line, and sinker.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:36 PM
-- Posted by rocknroll on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 6:56 PM
They only list hate groups, not individuals.
The New Black Panthers are listed as well as the Nation of Islam, of which Farrakhan was a leader.
In addition, they do place individuals on an "extremist watch" if they are actively involved groups that are extremist. Farrakhan is on that list as well.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:48 PM
"They're a racist group."
I didn't say they weren't racist, or racialist. I said that doesn't make them a "hate" group.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:25 PM
"Why did you post that editorialized take on the column rather than linking directly to the column itself?"
Because that was the only link I had at the time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:27 PM
"Oh dear Shapley...surely you are not suggesting white privilege does not exist..."
I don't believe it exists as you believe it exists. I have been in parts of the world where it provided no particular advantage. I have also known white folks whose station in life clearly indicated a lack of privilege.
Some tried to claim "white privilege" was evident in the difference between the arrrst of the Charleston shooter and the recent videotapes of blacks being arrested. But the difference appeared to be summed up in the news report: "he was cooperative...".
I have been stopped by police with no probable cause, but I cooperated and was allowed to go on my way, once the officer had ascertained my identity. It was an injustice, yes, but the time to argue that was not there, on the street, with him armed and with backup a radio call away. I have friends who were less cooperative during such stops, and they might argue about the concept of "privilege". Their privileges ended when they challenged the man with the badge.
I have been in areas of this nation where the white people, if they had any privilege, squandered it long ago.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:45 PM
"That's an example of privilege; having someone with your skin color on U.S. money."
We had an Indian (Native American) on our money for years. We put a Native American woman on the dollar coin when we reissued it a few years ago.
It hardly seems to be a privilege of race that a member of the majority race would be elected in a democratic (majority rules) election. That would seem to be "majority privilege" rather than white privilige. It's not so much about race as it is about numbers.
But I don't think the Indians, who graced our money for decades, would consider themselves particularly privileged.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:52 PM
One would think a good conservative would leave Utah's baseball team and their nights, up to the state of Utah.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 12:41 PM
Kind of like the Confederate Flag in South Carolina..... right Theorist?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 10:32 PM
Wheels, I agree, Their nights should be kept on Utah time. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 11:28 PM
"Why did you post that editorialized take on the column rather than linking directly to the column itself?"
Because that was the only link I had at the time.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 9:27 PM
Really?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 6:04 AM
Yes. Really? Why do you think otherwise? That was the link that was posted on facebook. Being on my tablet, navigating through additional links is more cumbersome than on the regular computer.
That is the same reason I didn't cut-and-paste the text, which I usually do. Time and limitations.
Why does that bother you so? I assume you were able to follow the link To its source.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 6:30 AM
"We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind"
There are those who look at what has become of society since the 1960s and believe it has degraded. Some blame forced integration and government efforts to tear down racial barriers.
Personally, I blame the welfare system and drugs, including the war on drugs. But I acknowledge there are other factors.
Through much of our history, segregation existed, much of it voluntary. Asian immigrants settled into Chinatowns and Koreatowns and Japantowns where their majority status gave them privilege, though in many cases it was because those were the only areas where Asians could settle. Nonetheless they built a home there. European stettlers built Little Italies and Germantowns and Polish Quarters and so on. Jewish communities rose, as well.
Sometimes religion formed these communities, as people settled near religious centers whrerin were found the Churches, Synagogues, Mosques, and other worship centers where they shared a common identity. Some look at the forced dispersal of these religious community's identity as a cause of degredation. Our efforts to be more "inclusive" has led to the backlash which fuels the rise of that which is branded by the SPLC as "hate groups". The believe the policies are wrong and they unite to oppose them. Their manner of opposition is what should distinguish "hate groups" from legitimate political action groups, but Morris Dees does not seem to draw that distinction.
The right to petiition government for redress of grievances is not limited to those grievances which are popular. If a group feels that the direction of government is wrong, they are free to unite to oppose it. That is how our republican form of government works.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 6:53 AM
"Microaggressions" is the new buzzword. The racialists are seeking to shut down discourse in America where they cannot control the direction of the conversation. Censorship is not a good thing, and the free discussion of ideas must include ideas which some find distasteful.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:02 AM
? Why do you think otherwise?
Why does that bother you so? I assume you were able to **follow the link** To its source.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 6:30 AM
Follow the link? SO you DID have the link to the original piece in question available.
Why did you lie and say it was not available to you? It was literally one finger press away if you were on a tablet.
Why does that bother me? Because there are one of two options: 1) you did not bother to read Ms. Michael's piece but felt compelled to share a column discussing it or 2) you read the original piece and realized how misleading your link was, but were hoping other readers wouldn't "follow the link" to the original.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:25 AM
"..."white privilege" is another made up propaganda scheme..."
That in itself is delusional enough, but if you really need more explanation consider this...
To some it may just be "normal privilege" in that "everyone" has those privileges. True, if you're white.
Try asking a black American if there is such a thing as "white privilege." After he or she stops laughing, you may get an explanation, and your eyes opened. Granted I went out on a limb here, by presuming that you actually know any black Americans.
Or, if you prefer, the term "white advantage" can be substituted for "white privilege." And if you're convinced that "everyone" has that same "advantage," consider the opposite side of the equation, "black disadvantage." If you also need that explained, take for example:
A higher likelihood of growing up in a poorer neighborhood with poorer schools.
A greater possibility of facing peer pressure to reject schooling.
More exposure to drug use and abuse.
Facing unexplained rejection in employment application.
Being assumed to be ignorant.
Suffering from an absence of good role-models in the neighbor, aggravated by lack of a father.
Experiencing a greater probability of being considered "guilty until proven innocent" by police.
Needing to be strongly cautioned by parents that "police might shoot you."
Having people avoid you on the sidewalk.
Being told that entertainment or athletics are your only hopes of success.
And many more....
----- ---- --- -- -
I am not saying at all that these disadvantages are caused entirely by white people. Many are clearly the fault of the black community, and many blacks have overcome most or all of these difficulties.
Deny "white privilege" as much as you want, but recall the advice on not judging until you've walked in someone else's moccasins.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:35 AM
but recall the advice on not judging until you've walked in someone else's moccasins. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:35 AM
Maybe take your own advice. You seem to project onto white people why they are successful, and then tell us not to judge black people until you've experienced their life.
See how that liberal garbage works? Tell us not to judge and then immediately judge the entire white race.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:45 AM
Farrakhan is on that list as well. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 7:48 PM
Why was he invited to participate in their forums and speak then?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:47 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:35 AM
That may have topped Mickey's post as the most outlandish I've read in a long time....I would almost bet the farm that I have interacted with the black culture more than anyone on this message board. And during all of that time and still to this day, NEVER has "white privilege" come close to the conversation. But you know what has? The issues that their own culture has brought on themselves and how they knew they had to escape it....All of those things you listed common are out of my control. So no, I've never experienced "white privilege".
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:49 AM
And one key stat that our three house "liberals" always forget about when talking about "white privilege"....The black community ONLY makes up 15% of our population.
Seek counseling for your guilt...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:55 AM
but recall the advice on not judging until you've walked in someone else's moccasins.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:35 AM
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:00 AM
All of those things you listed common are out of my control. So no, I've never experienced "white privilege".
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:49 AM
That doesn't mean you haven't benefited from it!
I think that's where you're misunderstanding. It seems you think "white privilege" is something caused by white people and that white people should feel guilty for it.
That's not the case. White privilege just **is**. It's no one's fault. No one should feel guilty for it.
But, you admit yourself it exists, "the issues that their own culture has brought on themselves and how they knew they had to escape it"
The fact that you don't have to do that is another example of white privilege.
Also keep in mind that attempting to bring any social phenomenon down to an individual level will skew the results. Of course the experience of the child of a doctor from Frontenac, Missouri is going to be different from the child of a farm hand from Hayti, Missouri, regardless of race.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:11 AM
To summarize - a racist individual takes a gun and kills 9 innocent people simply because of their race. And the response of politicians and liberals is
-take down a flag?
-attack a conservative group that he saw crime statistics on?
How about prosecute him for his individual actions? How about treating this like other crimes like the Asian student who killed all the students at Virginia Tech? Or like Reginal Carr (black) who killed 6 whites in Wichita, KS?
The liberal answer? It's the white man's fault. White guilt. White privilege caused the Charleston killings. Get rid of that flag. Attack an entire race for the actions of one man. Now *thats* racism.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:19 AM
"Why did you lie and say it was not available to you?"
Since you're going to resort to such false accusations, I think this will be my last comment addressed to you. You seem to be incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.
"It was literally one finger press away if you were on a tablet."
No. It was not. Facebook opens on my tablet as an app, separately from the web. I read the link which was posted on a friend's facebook post, and copied the link to it. I did not read the original link, time being what it was and all. I thought I pertinent to our discussion. I then opened the web browser and entered speak out, and copied the link. It was not "literally one finger press away". Nor am I all that adept at using the tablet, as my typing ought to indicate.
If you can't accept a simple explanation, then it is not worth my time discussing things. I will add you to the list of posters whose comments I ignore.
"Why does that bother me? Because there are one of two options: 1) you did not bother to read Ms. Michael's piece but felt compelled to share a column discussing it or 2) you read the original piece and realized how misleading your link was, but were hoping other readers wouldn't "follow the link" to the original."
There are other possibilities but, as usual, you think what you believe to be the only ones.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:26 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:19 AM
Wow, you don't pay attention at all.
Dylan Roof **is** being prosecuted.
No one had said white privilege caused the murders.
However, racism did. That's obvious. It highlights the racial division that still exists.
"That flag" is a long-standing symbol of racism. It was used by the segregationist Dixiecrat party. It was hoisted above Southern statehouses as a show of defiance against the country invalidating Jim Crow laws. It has long been used by the Ku Klux Klan and other racist groups.
Giving "that flag" a place of honor sends the message that the state doesn't care about that racist history.
Besides, we all know people have been upset about "that flag" being flown for years; this is hardly something new. Unfortunately, it took a horrific crime for that movement to gain large public support.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:36 AM
"So no, I've never experienced "white privilege".
Of course you have, you get it automatically just by being "white." And in fact you can't avoid it, unless you go the "Dolezal" route, which I doubt.
"...NEVER has "white privilege" come close to the conversation."
I don't doubt that. I'm sure the "plantation overseers" also had close "interaction" with "black culture" and they probably never talked about "white privilege" either.
"...are out of my control."
Wouldn't doubt that either. I'm sure there are any number of things that are out of your control.
"Seek counseling for your guilt..."
Why would you believe I have any "guilt?" What evidence do you have that I am guilty of anything? Except that is, of providing you rational information.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:38 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:38 AM
What evidence do you have that I've experienced "white privilege"?...
By your definitions, you must also include "black privilege", "Hispanic privilege", "LGBT privilege", etc....Now I realize what you're talking about; we all have "privilege". UTOPIA at last!!!
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:49 AM
Since you're going to resort to such false accusations, I think this will be my last comment addressed to you. You seem to be incapable of carrying on a civil conversation.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:26 AM
False? You ADMITTED you lied. You had the link available but chose not to link (or even read it).
I'm sorry I caught you, but don't take your embarrassment out on me. Simply apologize to everyone and move on.
I did not read the original link, time being what it was and all. I thought I pertinent to our discussion. - Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:26 AM
It was, but it was also very misleading. Which you would have known had you taken the time to click the link. Most likely, it would have redirected you from the Facebook app to a web browser. Even if you didn't, it would not have taken much time, once you opened the web browser to paste the link in the address bar and then click the link. That's what? Three or four finger presses?
you think what you believe to be the only ones.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:26 AM
It doesn't matter what I believe, you admit number one ("you did not bother to read Ms. Michael's piece but felt compelled to share a column discussing it") is true.
And just so there's no confusion, I'll paste your words again, "I did not read the original link, time being what it was and all. I thought I pertinent to our discussion"
This is why today's politics are so dangerous. You don't care if what you posted was misleading. You apparently don't care that you lied about the reason you didn't post it. What you wanted to say was more important than whether it was true or not. I hope the other posters here surprise me and also call for you to apologize to the forums. The key there is surprise me...history shows it's most likely that somehow the majority here will think I'm the bad guy because I called you out on your lies.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:01 AM
This entire post proves your bias and denial. "interacted with the black culture"...really? Just how do you propose you have "interacted"?
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:52 AM
You have NO idea who I am or what I have experienced. So your comment holds no weight, and I'll stick to my original statement. You three "liberal" hacks are chasing an unachievable utopia, and it's becoming a little nauseating....I don't give a crap what your skin color is or what your background is. If you work hard, show respect, take responsibility, and have good morals, you will achieve in life; period!
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:05 AM
You're not near as intelligent or important as you think you are-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:10 AM
I don't think I'm as intelligent or as important as you think I think I am.
Quit asking everyone to apologize, because you sound like a 7 year old little sissy. -- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:10 AM
It's sad that that's what you think. Admitting we've done something wrong and apologizing to those we've wronged is a sign of maturity. If we were all more willing to admit our errors and apologize, these forums (and the world) would be a better place.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:17 AM
"A higher likelihood of growing up in a poorer neighborhood with poorer schools."
Consider that many "advantaged" whites grew up attending one-room schools, sharecropper schools, or no schools at all. You say there is a "higher likelihood" of growing up in such schools? I can't see where that is the fault of the white community who, by and large, has paid the bulk of the taxes that support the schools they have.
"A greater possibility of facing peer pressure to reject schooling."
Hardly the fault of the white community. As I recall, we have spent vast sums of charitable and tax dollars on initiatives designed to provide incentives to students to remain in school.
"More exposure to drug use and abuse."
I do not know who to fault for that, but I do not believe it to be the white community that promotes drug use and abuse in black neighborhoods. There would seem to be a number of factors there, and the "war on drugs" is one of them, in my humble opinion.
"Facing unexplained rejection in employment application."
I think everyone faces that. Most places in which I have applied have not bothered to explain to me why they never hired me. If I called, I was told they "have my application on file".
"Being assumed to be ignorant."
That would seem to be a problem among "progressives", who believe them incapable of doing such things as getting a job, obtaining an ID, or registering to vote without making it easy for them to do so. We conservatives like to think them more capable than that.
"Suffering from an absence of good role-models in the neighbor, aggravated by lack of a father."
Again, I have to ask who bears the fault for that? White society, or the fathers who fail to do right by their offspring? Has the welfare system, in which the government supplanted the father as breadwinner, causes some of that situation? If so, is it the fault of "white society" or of poorly-thought-out government intervention?
"Experiencing a greater probability of being considered "guilty until proven innocent" by police."
Is that really true? So we are told. But, then again, given that they suffer "More exposure to drug use and abuse", is that presumption incorrect?
"Needing to be strongly cautioned by parents that "police might shoot you."
I was cautioned of that when I was young, as a means of instilling in me a respect for the police. Of course, that caution came with the additional condition "...if you give them cause to do so." We were taught to respect the badge and the men who wore it, to respect the law, and to respect others. We were also told that there was a time to argue and a time to silently accept injustice until the time to speak up presented itself.
"Having people avoid you on the sidewalk."
Huh? No one has ever avoided you on the sidewalk?
"Being told that entertainment or athletics are your only hopes of success."
The fault of our schools, if anything. We build schools with massive gymnasiums and advertise them as the "home of the [fill in your sports team's name here". Classrooms are an afterthought. Excel at sports and you can cut classes to travel for sporting events. That's not limited to blacks or minorities, but they seem to accept it.
I've known parents who put their feet down and so, "no, academics come first", but they are in the minority. The schools, meanwhile, beg an plead with them to make sports come first. It's not a racial issue there, it's an fault with our school system.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:36 AM
Some examples of "white privilege":
St. Louis: "A federal jury made the award to Sgt. David Bonenberger (white), who had sued in January 2012. The civil suit alleged that he was passed over for a leadership post at the city Police Academy. It claimed that academy director, Lt. Michael Muxo, told Bonenberger he shouldn't bother to apply for the assistant director opening. Muxo told him that the job was going to a black woman, the suit said."
===
Jon Everhart (white), 65, filed a civil lawsuit against Prince George's County school board based on a history of discrimination. That discrimination led to his termination -- and revocation of his teaching certification -- in June 2010, The Washington Post reports. Everhart had taught English at Largo High School since 2003. He was named Teacher of the Year and received multiple perfect job performance evaluations from prior Largo High School principals.
The harassment started in 2003 when Angelique Simpson-Marcus (black), a gym teacher at the time, reportedly told students, "The only reason a white man teaches in P.G. County is that they can't get a job elsewhere."What do you think?". Simpson-Marcus became Largo High School's principal in 2007, at which point Everhart said she called him "poor white trash," and "white *****.""
===
"A Long Island jury sided with Lt. Christopher Barrella after he claimed that then-Mayor Andrew Hardwick overlooked him to become chief of police so that he could name a Hispanic candidate to the position instead."
===
Looks like non-white privilege to me. And you support this? Need 100's of other cases?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:36 AM
[Sigh]
I did not lie. I did not say I lied. To say I said I lied is a lie.
But I tire of this name-calling and straying from the discussion at hand to play "gotcha". I do not know why MicCheck2, who I presume came into being because MicCheck1 was booted off the forum, has such a distaste for me. I try to be polite, I try to be topical.
If MicCheck2 prefers the original article be posted, he/she is free to post whichever links he sees fit. I read the article and posted the link. The link contained one or more links, including one to the original article, which ought to be sufficient for anyone. Anyone, perhaps, except MicCheck2, who believes everyone else is incapable of reading.
I've had enough of this thread. Y'all have a good day.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:47 AM
Ditto!!
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:53 AM
He talked back...... is it time to threaten with going to the powers that be at the newspaper if he doesn't comply?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:59 AM
I do not know why MicCheck2..has such a distaste for me.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:47 AM
Because you're a disgusting human being. You make things up, and when called out you try to place the blame on the one who chose not to ignore it.
You lied. You claimed you didn't post Ms. Michael's actual piece because you only had the link you posted available.
That is absolutely not true. You had the original available, as it was linked in the article you posted.
which ought to be sufficient for anyone. Anyone, perhaps, except MicCheck2, who believes everyone else is incapable of reading.
.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:47 AM
This is another example. I caught you in a lie and now you will make up my reason for being offended by your behavior and make me look like the bad guy.
Of course everyone could click on the link. I asked why you chose to post the article you did (which was very misleading) rather than the original.
You could have given any number of legitimate answers. Instead you chose to lie and for some reason, now you've chosen to try to make me look bad for pointing out your lie.
To be clear: You said you didn't have the link available. You said in your next post you DID have the link available.
That is your lie.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:15 AM
"I asked why you chose to post the article you did...'
And I answered.
"...(which was very misleading)..."
In your opinion. I did not find it so.
"...rather than the original."
It contained a link to the original. That ought to be sufficient.
"You could have given any number of legitimate answers." I gave one.
"Instead you chose to lie and for some reason,"
No, I did not. I copied the link, and then switched to the web. The link was in my "clipboard". I could not access the imbedded link without reopening the link, which I did not choose to do. I've already mentioned that time was short. You choose not to believe that, but that does not make it a lie. It was, at the time, the only link I had, since it was the only one in the "clipboard".
"...now you've chosen to try to make me look bad for pointing out your lie."
No. You make yourself look bad by tossing out the claim of "lie" because you are incapable of seeing it as true. I could care less whether you look bad or not. I do not even know you, as far as I know.
If you choose to dishonestly toss out charges of dishonesty, then you can expect to look bad.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:24 AM
"You said you didn't have the link available."
No. I said it was the only link I had at the time. That is not the same thing.
"You said in your next post you DID have the link available."
No. I never said that. I said that you were able to follow the links, which is to say I acknowledged that the link to the original was imbedded in the link I posted.
If you have to paraphrase what I said in order to claim it was a "lie", then I might suggest that it never was. Why didn't you quote what I wrote rather than paraphrase, if you wanted to make such a claim?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:28 AM
And yes, the color of skin you are born with is out of your control...but you could give up some of your "privilege", which is the only way the world will every be equal. Those with the power have to be able to give some of that power up...
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:52 AM
Theorist,
I have always considered you to be a reasonably intelligent individual, but that statement does make one wonder.
Do you seriously believe the world will ever be equal, or that the Creator even intended it to be?
I have never understood why when there is abundance in this world if we only seek it.... I must give up that which I worked hard for so that someone else may have it when there is more out there should they seek it.
What you are suggesting is that I downgrade my existence to be equal to the underachieving masses. How does that help anyone?
I am not wealthy, but I worked to make myself comfortable. When I was poor I drove a $100 automobile that I owed the $100 for. I worked my way up from there to paying cash for what I drove. ... which was and is a used car when I purchased it.
I will help anyone who wants to help themselves, but I will not lower my goals and or standards to match someone else's just because someone who may be dumber than I am suggests it. And I am not fingering you here, but those who put those insane ideas in your head to begin with.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:32 AM
He talked back...... is it time to threaten with going to the powers that be at the newspaper if he doesn't comply?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:38 AM
Disregard this last repost. I am working with a new phone and hit the wrong button.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:41 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:58 AM
How big does the chip on someone's shoulder have to get before they completely tip over?....
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:00 AM
Because you're a disgusting human being. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:15 AM
YOU made the comment about me, yet again. Seriously, your obsession is making me uncomfortable and you need to stop. No need to start that silly crap with me. I'm not starting silly crap, and I will ask you one time to apologize before I go to the administrators about your behavior. Please, apologize and make no more comments about me. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Jun 19, 2015, at 11:18 AM
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:03 AM
Dug, I think the hypocracy is oozing out of poor Mickey's shoes...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:10 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:28 AM
Your lie and refusal to admit your lie had totally got this conversation off track.
Now you're trying to play semantics games to cover up your lie.
The fact remains, you DID have the link. It was in the article you linked. Saying you didn't have it is not true. You state you KNEW that statement was not true when you said you people could follow the links.
The reason you didn't post the original is because you chose not to take the time to click on it and copy the address.
You had the link, you chose not to use that information so you could post it.
"I didn't feel like it" is a perfectly acceptable and truthful answer. Again, you didn't say that. You chose to lie and say, "that was the only link I had at the time."
"...(which was very misleading)..."
In your opinion. I did not find it so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:28 AM
That's says even more about your concern for truthfulness. Unless you still haven't read it.
Michael said, "I remember deciding that I couldn't have biological children because I didn't want to propagate my privilege biologically." She then goes on to point out that she was misguided in her way of thinking in her 20s.
The Daily Surge said, "I Chose Not To Have Children, Because They'd Be White"
The second is a misleading interpretation of the first, especially since the Daily Surge makes no effort point out that the statement it quotes are from Ms. Michael's past.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:11 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:03 AM
Did you not notice I was responding to a comment Shapley made about himself in reference to me?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:14 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:03 AM
Did you not notice I was responding to a comment Shapley made about himself in reference to me?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:14 AM
"Again, I have to ask who bears the fault for that? White society..."
Certainly not, as I said before...
I am not saying at all that these disadvantages are caused entirely by white people. Many are clearly the fault of the black community, and many blacks have overcome most or all of these difficulties.
The examples given are instances of "black disadvantage." These apply to a greater percentage of black Americans, than apply to a smaller percentage of white Americans growing up under or experiencing similar constraints or disadvantages.
"I was cautioned of that when I was young, as a means of instilling in me a respect for the police."
I have no doubt that you were cautioned, just as I taught my sons to have respect for the police, but I did not have to emphasize that fact that they could easily be shot. I may have said "jailed" but not "killed."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:15 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:03 AM
:-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:19 AM
"The fact remains, you DID have the link. It was in the article you linked. Saying you didn't have it is not true.
Geez. You can't seem to follow the simplest of things. The only link I had at the time was the one in my clipboard, which was to the article I posted. As I noted in my initial response, that is the reason I did not cut-and-paste the content. That ought to be fairly easy to understand, even for you. There is nothing dishonest about that statement. Once I closed the article and copied the link, which I can do without opening the article by clicking the "copy link" option in facebook, I did not have immediate access to the content of the article, merely the link. Do you understand that, or do I need to draw a diagram?
"You state you KNEW that statement was not true when you said you people could follow the links."
Show me where I made such a statement. I never said I knew, with capital letters or without, the statement was not true because it was true.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:40 AM
"The second is a misleading interpretation of the first, especially since the Daily Surge makes no effort point out that the statement it quotes are from Ms. Michael's past."
Now you are lying, as much as I hate to use that term. The article clearly notes that:
"Michael has apparently mellowed out a little bit over time, and says she now accepts the necessity of whites accepting their racial identity rather than taking a new one, but mostly because this is the best way for whites to feel adequately guilty."
That appears to be a clear indication that time has passed since the statement was originally made.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:46 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:46 AM
You're right, I did miss that. I apologize.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:52 AM
I never said I knew, with capital letters or without, the statement was not true because it was true.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:40 AM
You stated people can follow links (or words to that effect), correct?
If you know people can follow links, then you must know the link is right there, correct?
Do you understand that, or do I need to draw a diagram?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:40 AM
I have understood perfectly. You chose not to click on the link so you could copy it to your clipboard and paste it here.
Again, that's the real reason, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not sure why you didn't say that the first time I asked and instead made up a lie.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 11:57 AM
Here's a flow chart. Perhaps you can follow it. Perhaps not.
1) Observe link to article on facebook page.
2) Click on facebook post, article opens in new window.
3) Read article.
4) Close article. Return to facebook.
5) Scroll over facebook post, options window opens.
6) Select "copy link" from options.
7) Open web browser.
8) Go to semissourian.com/opinion
9) Open discussion thread.
10) Scroll Down to "Respond to this thread" box.
11) Paste link (the only link I have, at the time, the one in the copied to the clipboard earlier.
12) Click "Preview your comment".
13) Click "Post Comment".
14) Go on about my business.
Now, what part of that chain of events makes what I stated a "lie"?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:00 PM
I'm not sure why someone on here is still kicking a dead horse...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:05 PM
Your points seems to be that you think the original article was more pertinent than the one I posted, and that therefore I had some obligation to post the article you preferred to the one I posted. Not so. I posted the link to the one I read. As I said, had I the time and the ability to switch back and forth, I'd have probably cut and pasted the text, as I usually do, but time was short. I might have even opted to paste the link to the original text, but probably wouldn't have, since I don't linking to Huffington Post articles. There is nothing dishonest about that, just as there is nothing dishonest about what I said. It was, quite literally, the only link I had at the time.
You seem to be concerned that I did not take the time to reopen the browser, click another link and paste that one, as if I was under some obligation to do so. I posted the link that was given me via facebook.
You've called me "disgusting", even though, as far as I know, we've never met. You are a very judgmental person, it seems. You are quick to define a person as "lying", even though you have no evidence to back it up. You have yet to paste a single word of mine which supports your claim, but rather paraphrased what I wrote to claim I said what I did not say.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM
Theorist
Point is that really was nothing of a response to my post if that was what you intended it to be.
Your Leftist philosophy is still extremely flawed and will be looked upon as such when sanity is restored in generations of the future. Quote what you will it will not provide answers for today's problem.
Asking people to lower their own standards to achieve equality is ignorance.
If you have no answer to a question asked just say so.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM
"I'm not sure why someone on here is still kicking a dead horse..."
I'm not sure either, but I think I'll stop kicking it now. I suppose I hate to be called a liar, particularly when I've shown clearly that I didn't lie.
MicCheck2 can have the final word. It ought to be an apology, but I don't reckon that'll happen.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:10 PM
SH
It is about superiority.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:12 PM
Now, what part of that chain of events makes what I stated a "lie"?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:00 PM -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:00 PM
This one: "The only link I have, at the time,"
There were other links, including the one in question, in the article. If you "had" the daily surge link, you "had' the other links. At most, it would have taken three or four additional steps between 7 and 8 (pasting the copied link, clicking the link, and then copying the address are all I can think of).
You've called me "disgusting", even though, as far as I know, we've never met.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM
Right, based on your behavior here and the fact you see nothing wrong with it, I am quite comfortable with my decision.
For example: "Your points seems to be that you think the original article was more pertinent than the one I posted, and that therefore I had some obligation to post the article you preferred to the one I posted"
I've never said anything of the sort! My point is when asked why you didn't post the HuffPo link, you lied about the reason and you are still lying about it.
Why are you attempting to argue against "I had some obligation to post the article you preferred to the one I posted" and "You seem to be concerned that I did not take the time to reopen the browser, click another link and paste that one, as if I was under some obligation to do so. I posted the link that was given me via facebook."
Because it makes you look better. You're shifting the focus away from your lie to a topic you think you can "win". You seem concerned with defending your decision for not posting the link, which you are only in a position to do because you lied about the reason the first time.
You've called me "disgusting", even though, as far as I know, we've never met. You are a very judgmental person, it seems.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 12:08 PM
Not really, but this is hardly the first time you've shown that you will use disgusting tactics to support you political agenda. Whether it's lying about the reason you didn't post a link, claiming people were supportive of Brittany Maynard's choice to end her life because it saved the system money, or accusing me of personal attacks when I point the Chelsea Manning is hardly an example in support of Don't ask, don't tell, your agenda is more important than anything else.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 1:05 PM
Apparently, someone doesn't know what "...at the time" means.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM
Apparently, someone doesn't know what "...at the time" means.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:00 PM
At the time you posted your link, you also had the HuffPo link...the daily surge folks even made it easy to find.
You didn't want to do the extra work required? Fine. But don't keep saying you didn't have it if you don't want to be called a liar.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:08 PM
Theorist
Superiority wasn't directed you.
There is nothing superior about believing that a philosophy held by others is flawed.
I do understand where the left is coming from with their assumptions on white superiority. Theorist, I feel that I am as good as anyone else who has trampled across this earth and certainly no better than the least of them. I hold no man in awe nor do I hold anyone in disdain that will treat me as an equal. Certainly not fearful as you suggest.
Surely there are advantages to being white if the bulk of the population is white. But how is that any different than being at the poverty level whenyou are growing up. Are you disadvantaged in both cases. You bet you are! Who's job then is it to do something about it rather than to whine about it to God and everyone who will listen to you.
Theorist,my wife and I have chosen to live in an apartment at this time of our lives. Would it surprise you to know that I have black neighbors living not 100 feet from me? I treat them no different than anyone else when I meet them in the hall or on the elevator. And hey,some of them drive newer and nicer cars than we do. Should I be bothered by that.... I'm not.
Sorry, yes I did think you were responding to my post. Wasn't paying attention to the time frame.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:10 PM
Theorist
Superiority wasn't directed you.
There is nothing superior about believing that a philosophy held by others is flawed.
I do understand where the left is coming from with their assumptions on white superiority. Theorist, I feel that I am as good as anyone else who has trampled across this earth and certainly no better than the least of them. I hold no man in awe nor do I hold anyone in disdain that will treat me as an equal. Certainly not fearful as you suggest.
Surely there are advantages to being white if the bulk of the population is white. But how is that any different than being at the poverty level whenyou are growing up. Are you disadvantaged in both cases. You bet you are! Who's job then is it to do something about it rather than to whine about it to God and everyone who will listen to you.
Theorist,my wife and I have chosen to live in an apartment at this time of our lives. Would it surprise you to know that I have black neighbors living not 100 feet from me? I treat them no different than anyone else when I meet them in the hall or on the elevator. And hey,some of them drive newer and nicer cars than we do. Should I be bothered by that.... I'm not.
Sorry, yes I did think you were responding to my post. Wasn't paying attention to the time frame.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:10 PM
I wonder if our three house "liberals" think the NBA or NFL are discriminatory?...That has to be "black privilege".
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:17 PM
"You didn't want to do the extra work required?"
I already mentioned the time thing. I guess you missed that, too.
You're becoming a bit unhinged. Now you're dredging up old issues from long ago, having degraded this thread to the point of meaningless drivel.
"I had some obligation to post the article you preferred to the one I posted"
I asked you when you first questioned why it bothered you. You've simply decided to hang on the concept that I "lied", even though what I stated was quite factual.
"Right, based on your behavior here and the fact you see nothing wrong with it, I am quite comfortable with my decision."
In other words, having an opinion different than yours, and refusing the bend it to make you happy makes one "disgusting"? Then I shall be happy to disgust you.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:21 PM
I already mentioned the time thing. I guess you missed that, too.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:21 PM
No, not at all. Perhaps you missed the fact I said "fine" right after that.
Now you're dredging up old issues from long ago, having degraded this thread to the point of meaningless drivel.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:21 PM
I only "dredged up" those issues because you objected to my calling you disgusting.
I asked you when you first questioned why it bothered you. You've simply decided to hang on the concept that I "lied", even though what I stated was quite factual.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:21 PM
Right, and I answered. Why are you making up reason it bothered me then?
In other words, having an opinion different than yours, and refusing the bend it to make you happy makes one "disgusting"? Then I shall be happy to disgust you.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:21 PM
Another example of why I think you're disgusting. I made quite clear that it is not because you have different opinions from me. I laid out specific examples of disgusting behavior on your part (remember, you then said I was dredging up issues from the past)
I have no issue with you holding different opinions from me and will happily discuss them (that's why we're here after all). However, I DO take issue with the depths to which you will sink in an effort to support your opinions, to the extent you've spent the entire day attempting to say "that was the only link I had" was not a lie, even though you admitted early today you did have other links.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:39 PM
"I laid out specific examples of disgusting behavior on your part (remember, you then said I was dredging up issues from the past)"
Behaviour? I expressed my opinions.
_______________
I can't seem to shake this image of you, sitting in a chair twisting a bunch of marbles in your hand.
"Ahh but the links. that's that's where I had him. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with geometric logic that a duplicate link to the original article DID exist, and I'd have produced that link if they hadn't of pulled the thread out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow conservatives."
I did not "have other links". I had the one link, on my clipboard. I had access to other links, true, as I always do when I am on the web. But, at the time, I had only the one. You can argue all you want to the contrary, but that remains factual.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:58 PM
You can argue all you want to the contrary, but that remains factual.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:58 PM
Are you like this at the dinner table?
"Shapley, please pass the potatoes"
"I don't have the potatoes"
"Yes, you do, they're right there to your left".
"No, I don't have them, all I have is my fork. Can't you see my hands?"
I had access to other links, true, as I always do when I am on the web.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:58 PM
This isn't a matter of having other links available, it's a matter of having them in your possession. The link in question was in your possession; it was in the article you posted. The only way to "have a link" isn't to have it copied to your clipboard.
Behaviour? I expressed my opinions.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 2:58 PM
No, not at all. When I pointed out the logical flaw in your argument regarding Chelsea Manning, you accused me of attacking you personally, though I'd done no such thing. After Brittany Maynard's passing, you said people were celebrating her "presumably" because of the money saved. When questioned, you couldn't produce a shred of evidence supporting that "presumption". You tried to use her death as way to promote your own agenda, even though you knew what you were saying was not true.
You did the same thing in this thread:
"Your points seems to be that you think the original article was more pertinent than the one I posted, and that therefore I had some obligation to post the article you preferred to the one I posted.
You seem to be concerned that I did not take the time to reopen the browser, click another link and paste that one, as if I was under some obligation to do so."
Of course, neither of those were true. My points seemed to be that you lied when I asked you the reason you didn't post the other link. I think anyone who takes the time to read this thread will agree that your lying is my main concern.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:18 PM
The way today's conversation should have happened:
Hunter, "That was the only link I had at the time"
Miccheck, "Really?"
Hunter, "Well, of course not really...I know the other link was embedded in the article I posted, but I decided not to take the time to read it or copy the address. I apologize I said it was the only link I had. I was trying to be brief."
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:23 PM
" it was in the article you posted. "
I didn't post the article, I only posted a link. As I said, it was the only one I had. In order to post a different link, I'd have had to open that link, (which opens sluggishly on my tablet) in order to open a link to Huffington Post (which also opens sluggishly), in order to copy an additional link which wasn't necessary, since it was available to anyone who opened the first link.
So, I ask again, why do you think it necessary to post a different link if the link you wanted is in the link I posted? The only answer would seem to be that you disagreed with the link I posted, and thus think I should have posted a different one, no?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:24 PM
Do you understand the meaning of the word "presumably"? Apparently not. If I had evidence to prove it was true, it would no longer be a presumption, would it?
"You tried to use her death as way to promote your own agenda, even though you knew what you were saying was not true."
You did not prove it untrue, again consistent with the definition of "presumably".
"My points seemed to be that you lied when I asked you the reason you didn't post the other link."
And my point is that you seem to be overly concerned with my posting of the link to the commentary rather than the original article, even though the commentary article contained the link you desired.
Add to that an obsessive desire on your part to prove me to be dishonest and "disgusting".
_______________
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:23 PM --
Really? How about:
"Hunter, "That was the only link I had at the time"
MicCheck2, "Oh, Okay." There was a link to the original article in the commentary you posted. I think you should have posted that, instead.
But you prefer to adhere to the idea that I "lied".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:33 PM
"The way today's conversation should have happened:"
Speaking of presumptions.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:34 PM
" I think anyone who takes the time to read this thread will agree that your lying is my main concern."
I think anyone who reads this thread will agree we've spent way too much time on it, and that you really have flown off the handle.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:35 PM
I didn't post the article, I only posted a link.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:24 PM
Give it up. They mean the same thing.
As I said, it was the only one I had.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:24 PM
And you admit that's a lie in your next sentence.
"I'd have had to open that link, (which opens sluggishly on my tablet) in order to open a link..."
You also go on to give the real reason you didn't post the HuffPo link: you though it would take too long and you didn't feel it was necessary.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:38 PM
That you really have flown off the handle.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:35 PM
You're the one who still insists he did lie even though I've shown over and over you did.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:39 PM
If I had evidence to prove it was true, it would no longer be a presumption, would it?-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:33 PM
Exactly, which means you had no reason to state that except that you wanted it to be true. You used a young woman's death to promote your own agenda.
And my point is that you seem to be overly concerned with my posting of the link to the commentary rather than the original article, even though the commentary article contained the link you desired.-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:33 PM
No, I haven't. I've barely mentioned any concern with the link you've chosen to post. You keep accusing me of that, but it simply is not true. Again, I have been posting about your lies, not about your decision not to post a certain link.
The fact that you keep saying this makes me wonder is a) you are responding to me without reading what I'm saying, or b) intentionally lying about my posts in another effort to make me look like the bad guy.
But you prefer to adhere to the idea that I "lied".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:33 PM
I don't prefer anything. You lied, and you know you lied.
Now, had this been someone I'd never conversed with, yeah, I would have been more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt that they didn't realize the original was in the article.
Knowing your modus operandi, I saw no reason to give you that benefit, and the fact that you've since admitted you knew the link to HuffPo was there I made the right call. You'll notice, though, that by asking "really" I gave you an opportunity to back out of your lie before saying anything.
You chose to double down on the lies.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:49 PM
"You're the one who still insists he did lie even though I've shown over and over you did."
You've shown it only to yourself.
"Give it up. They mean the same thing."
No, they don't.
"article: : a piece of writing about a particular subject that is included in a magazine, newspaper, etc."
"link: an identifier attached to an element (as an index term) in a system in order to indicate or permit connection with other similarly identified elements ; especially : one (as a hyperlink) in a computer file"
They aren't even close. If I post an article, I cut and paste it. If I post a link, I post a link to an article, photo, etc.
You really do keep digging yourself deeper and deeper into this.
I said that was the only link I had "at the time". You say it was a lie because it would have only taken a little more time to obtain the link, which clearly means, at the time in question, I did not have the link. That, by extension of your own logic.
And I did acknowledge that time was a constraint, in the very next post, as you note.
So, you acknowledge that I did not have the link "at the time" but that, because I had access "at the time", I should have taken the time to access the link that I didn't think was necessary in order to satisfy your dissatisfaction with the article of which, at the time, I was not even necessary. Isn't that just about the gist of it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:55 PM
Why does little Mickey call Shapley "disgusting", yet continue to try and argue with him?....Don't bother, I know the answer!..:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:56 PM
Sorry, that was supposed to read "...of which, at the time, I was not even aware." My fingers got ahead of me.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:00 PM
"Again, I have been posting about your lies, not about your decision not to post a certain link."
My decision to post that link was what brought up the whole discussion. If it was not important to you, why did you even ask?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:02 PM
" You used a young woman's death to promote your own agenda."
So now we're back on topic. Finally.
Are you saying that Mr. Obama using the Church shootings to call for gun control, or those opposed to the Confederate flag using the shootings to call for its removal, are not using those people's death to promote their own agenda?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:24 PM
Indeed, it was apparently only because you disagreed with my "agenda" that it was even an issue, since you did not concern yourself with those who used her death to call for approval of assisted suicide.
Curiously, I did not even oppose her right to die, since I did not consider it an "assisted" suicide, and I believe the right to end one's life is a legal right in a free society, even if it is morally objectionable. But, Euthanasia has been promoted as a means of reducing health care costs, and I did support that with evidence at the time, as best I recall.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:29 PM
But, Euthanasia has been promoted as a means of reducing health care costs, and I did support that with evidence at the time, as best I recall.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:29 PM
Shapley: We now have the ACA (Pinkycare) which somewhere in the thousands of unread pages Euthanasia is probably suggested as a means to reduce health care costs.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 5:25 PM
Indeed, it was apparently only because you disagreed with my "agenda" that it was even an issue, since you did not concern yourself with those who used her death to call for approval of assisted suicide.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:29 PM
No, it was because you LIED to use her death to promote you agenda.
Had Dylan Roof not been racist and people used the shooting to call for the flag to be removed, yes I would find it disgusting. If someone said Dylan Roof acted as he did because he wanted to save others money, yes I would find it disgusting.
Semo471's 5:25 points out exactly why I find what you do so disgusting. It's because of you and people like you who have spread falsehoods about the PPACA that make people like semo even think to suggest it will lead to Euthanasia to save costs.
Oh, you say, but I didn't lie, I said presumably, semo can formulate his own opinions, I can't be responsible for what he believes.
True, he can think for himself and is responsible for his own beliefs. However, there is so much "noise" out there being spread intentionally by people like you who have no concern for the truth as long as you get your way.
\
But, Euthanasia has been promoted as a means of reducing health care costs, and I did support that with evidence at the time, as best I recall.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:29 PM
Sigh...again, you took that, and used it to "presume" something completely different.
That's dishonest.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 5:48 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 3:55 PM
Oh goody, Shapley brought out the dictionary. That's rare.
You posted an article. Did you copy and paste the article into the forums? No, you posted it by copying and pasting a link.
They mean the same thing.
Again, you *had* the HuffPo link. It would have taken a bit more work to copy and paste it. But you had it. It was right there in the link you pasted.
My decision to post that link was what brought up the whole discussion. If it was not important to you, why did you even ask?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:02 PM
Because I wanted to know why you would post an editorialized version of something rather than the actual item of discussion.
Why did you feel the need to claim it was because didn't have the link, when we all know at this point you did?
Why not just say "I was too lazy" or "I didn't want to" or "I got in a hurry" or even "I didn't read the original".
You have given tons of legitimate reasons since this morning you didn't post the link. Why did you try to hide your reason this morning behind a lie?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 5:53 PM
Are you saying that Mr. Obama using the Church shootings to call for gun control,-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 4:24 PM
I got this one....NO! He is reminding the nation of what could have been prevented...just as he did with Sandy Hook...and others.
He isn't using anything but his mouth...I am surprised you aren't advocating for the same thing!
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 5:32 PM
There are none so blind as those who will not see! Of course he is using the shootings to promote gun control. Same way you and others do on Speak Out and the threads every time some punk fires a gun.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 5:53 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 5:48 PM
Mic2: Get over your self and lighten up. My comment about Pinkycare and Euthanasia to save costs was to get you Liberals all fired up after pulling up your little or big panties.
Also, I wish you would go back being the Closeted Atheist because you are more entertaining as him.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 6:00 PM
"...now where did the system fail?"
That Theorist, is a no brainer! The bloated big government in this country is where it failed. Nobody is responsible for anything when it happens. All they do is talk and make excuses.
As you you said in your post earlier.... "He isn't using anything but his mouth..."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:47 PM
I just tuned into the threads and skimmed through today's comments. Seems to me it went to a discussion to a comedy of the usual people defending what they said. One [guess who] accuses the other of a lie and the rest fall in line trying to legitimize what they said.
Sounds like a lot of us have difficulty being precise when sharing opinions and one poster seems to be more interested in pointing that out than contributing to a discussion.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:53 PM
Careful there Old John, or you'll be scheduled for extinction right alongside of me.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 7:57 PM
Wheels, We may be scheduled but I try to go by my own schedule.
When we offer an opinion and someone tries to invalidate such, not with a counter opinion but mincing of words and the cry of you lie, It confirms someone has no concrete rebuttal.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:12 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:19 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:19 PM
Absolutely ludicrous. As I posted earlier and at the start of the thread getting rid of a symbol because of a killer.
I also posted earlier - if I wrap myself in a "rainbow" flag for the LGBT cause and kill people should it be taken down everywhere? Should it not be sold in stores? Banned?
It's far-left PC BS trying to win the losing argument that the war was all about slavery.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:38 PM
Seems like you still haven't a clue about the "root cause" of the Civil War.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:05 PM
Seems like you still haven't a clue about the "root cause" of the Civil War. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:05 PM
There were slave owners in the North Common. Many slave owners in the south were black - and ruthless. Seems like you still haven't got off those far-left talking points. The ones that bait voters.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:18 PM
"Wrong! The seller, sold the gun without doing the necessary checks....so arrest him!"
Theorist
Had company and then tried to verify your claim that no background check was done. I found nothing with Google.
That company will loose it's license if that is true.
Perhaps you can furnish a link to the story behind your statement?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:45 PM
....has no concrete rebuttal.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:12 PM
Sorry for the delay. I think you are onto something there.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:49 PM
Someone knows where Dylan Roof bought that handgun he used to kill 9 innocent people with, but from the conflicting information I have been finding, it is not the media. Tried verifying Theorist's claim that no background check was performed. That could be true if it was a gift or a private sale. I thought the latest information was that he purchased the gun at a gun shop. I have a hard time believing a licensed firearms dealership sold a handgun with no background check. That is a Federal license and requirement.
Anybody have any ideas?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:28 PM
Seems like you still haven't a clue about the "root cause" of the Civil War.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 9:05 PM
Seems like you still haven't a clue about the "true cause" of the Civil War.
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 10:39 PM
As I posted earlier and at the start of the thread getting rid of a symbol because of a killer.
-- Posted by Dug on Wed, Jun 24, 2015, at 8:38 PM
I think that's what you're missing. No one is suggesting that flag be removed because of one incident.
Last weeks shootings, though, were simply further evidence of that flag's history of a racist symbol. From the KKK to the Dixiecrats to the state legislators raising because Jim Crow laws were being invalidated, that flag has long been a symbol of racism.
I can understand that would be upsetting for someone whose ancestors fought in one of the armies that used the flag. It would be upsetting for someone whose family has used a swastika for years before WWII, too. Unfortunately, like the flag, the swastika will be associated with something ugly for a long, long time.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 6:10 AM
According to Red Rhino's post, someone broke the law, when they sold or gave Roof his gun. -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Jun 23, 2015, at 2:18 PM
The Roof shooting triggered a discussion that has laid dormant.
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 6:35 AM
"Roof had been arrested in late February at a Columbia shopping mall and charged with possessing Suboxone, a controlled substance commonly used to treat heroin addiction. He was indicted by a Lexington County grand jury on a state drug charge, a case that is currently pending.
"Federal law prohibits the sale of a gun to anyone who is "under indictment for" a felony, but the drug charge Roof faces is a misdemeanor under South Carolina law. For that reason, according to several current and former law enforcement officials, the pending charge did not disqualify Roof from buying a gun."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 7:12 AM
So, it sounds as if someone is lying in order to use these deaths to promote their agenda.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:21 AM
Never let a good crisis go to waste!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:26 AM
I suppose Theorist was just "funnin" me when she made that statement about there being no background check. She hasn't offered any proof. And she seemed so emphatic about it too.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:30 AM
Now either the seller, did the checks...and decided it was ok to sell him the weapon even knowing he was on parole for above violation, or he didn't do the checks...
I agree Shapley...you are promoting your own agenda by selecting only a couple of paragraphs from your source.
The gun shop is said to be 25 miles from his home, but was not named to my knowledge, Wheels.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:36 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:40 AM
Now either the seller, did the checks...and decided it was ok to sell him the weapon even knowing he was on parole for above violation, or he didn't do the checks...
I agree Shapley...you are promoting your own agenda by selecting only a couple of paragraphs from your source.
The gun shop is said to be 25 miles from his home, but was not named to my knowledge, Wheels.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:36 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:40 AM
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 7:12 AM
Shapley: That's the version I had heard and sounds like the way it happen. If not Roof would not had been able to buy a gun. Even if he was turned down he could have boughtit one from the black market.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:43 AM
Now either the seller, did the checks...and decided it was ok to sell him the weapon even knowing he was on parole for above violation, or he didn't do the checks...
I agree Shapley...you are promoting your own agenda by selecting only a couple of paragraphs from your source.
The gun shop is said to be 25 miles from his home, but was not named to my knowledge, Wheels.
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:36 AM
Theorist, a couple of points.....
Last night you made an emphatic statement that there was no background check made.
Now you make an either or statement saying if he made the check he must have decided to sell the gun regardless of the results..... or he didn't do one.
The gun shop doesn't have the option to make a decision regardless of the background check results.
The truth of the matter is you have no idea what you are talking about and refuse to accept the possibility of one more government failure.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:54 AM
Wonder how the gun owner is sleeping? -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:37 AM
That's a big jump considering the limited information. Promoting an agenda here?
It could have been that Roof went in with money, picked out a gun, the owner ran a check that came back "OK" and then sold the gun. How would the gun owner know he was crazy?
Isn't that possible?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:57 AM
The last sentence of the linked article was also left out...
"For all these reasons, law enforcement officials say, the sale of the gun to Dylann Roof was legal."
So if this "...lunatic murderer..." can be allowed to buy a gun legally, it must be time to update our gun laws.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:57 AM
Thanks, I thought it was well said too!
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:41 AM
Don't flatter yourself, I am typing on a new phone and hit send before I got started with my statement. See above.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:58 AM
- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:57 AM
Yeah!
We cannot administer the law we have..... let's make some more laws.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:04 AM
"The gun shop is said to be 25 miles from his home, but was not named to my knowledge, Wheels."
The gun shop was named in my link. No mention of a felony. No evidence he was on parole, nor would he have been without a conviction. This was from the most recent news sources I could find. Two days ago. I did find one that reported a felony arrest, but included a correction stating that the charges were a misdemeanor.
Given that I provided a link, and everyone else is just speculating and repeating unsupported claims, I would suggest it is not me who is being dishonest in order to support an agenda. If you have evidence that suggests no background check was performed, or that he should have failed the one that was, post your sources.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:10 AM
"The fact is...the gun seller sold a gun to a crazy man, and now 9 people are dead. Wonder how the gun owner is sleeping?"
What evidence suggested he was crazy before the shooting.
You seem to worry a lot about peoples' sleeping problems.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:13 AM
"So if this "...lunatic murderer..." can be allowed to buy a gun legally, it must be time to update our gun laws."
Yes, obviously we need to perfect time travel so we can go back and prevent sales of firearms to people who later misuse them.
___________
It sounds to me as if you are using these deaths to promote your agenda. I am informed that is a no-no on these threads.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:18 AM
You assumed..... and somebody needed to pay.
Parse "assume" and see what it makes of you and me.
We definitely do not know that it has nothing to do with non functioning big government!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:21 AM
"We do know it has nothing to do with "Big Government"."
We also know it had nothing to do with Rebel flags.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:21 AM
Then why didn't you link it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:22 AM
"Now...he was not convicted, but he was on parole for the above, and he had also recently been in trouble again for violating his parole. This we know."
I find no article saying he was on parole, nor that he has ever been convicted. Ergo, we do not know any such thing.
Parole is the release of a convicted prisoner.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:27 AM
I should say the "early release of a convicted prisoner". Probation is the supervised release of a convicted prisoner. Bail is the release of an arrestee, prior to sentencing, contingent on the posting of a bond.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:30 AM
Mine is to support a constitutional right and existing law: innocent unless proven guilty. Given that yours seems to require misinforming people about the facts, I am certain MicCheck2 will be along shortly to denounce you as "disgusting", since that is his/her stated criteria for the use of the moniker.
Giving a firearm as a gift to an eligible recipient does not constitute a "straw purchase". You have yet to produce evidence that Roof was ineligible to make such a purchase, you merely presumed him to be so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:35 AM
The article I linked explains how it happened. The drug charge was a misdemeanor. If you want to elevate all drug charges to felonies, we will have to build a lot more prisons. If you want to prohibit purchases based on misdemeanors, than many police, federal agents, and soldiers will find themselves forced to uphold the law at knifepoint.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:38 AM
I am certain MicCheck2 will be along shortly-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:35 AM
I'm sorry, but I have a long-standing policy that I do not discuss gun control or abortion on internet forums. As such, MicCheck2 will not be joining this particular conversation.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:47 AM
"Mine is to support a constitutional right..."
Perhaps we are approaching a point in time where the majority of Americans see the desirability of passing a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd Amendment.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:47 AM
What we need is some more hysterical handwringing.
I spent about an hour reading articles on the Dylan Roof situation and found no "cut and dried" information that proved anything that it was the fault of a Federal licensed firearms dealer.
Theorist says basically how can it happen that he was able to get a gun, couldn't possibly be a problem of non or poorly functioning government.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:51 AM
"A review of congressional legislative records, federal lobbying disclosure forms, as well as interviews with former ATF agents, shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation's gun laws and opposed any attempt to boost the ability of the Bureau of the Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to enforce current laws, including:"
* The Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986. This law mandated that the ATF could only inspect firearms dealers once a year. It reduced record-keeping penalties from felonies to misdemeanors, prohibited the ATF from computerizing purchase records for firearms and required the government to prove that a gun dealer was "willful" if they sold a firearm to a prohibited person.
* The Tiahrt amendments. Beginning in 2003, the amendments by then-representative Todd Tiahrt, R-Kan., to the Justice Department's appropriation bill included requirements such as the same-day destruction of FBI background check documents and limits on the sharing of data from traces.
* Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Reform and Firearms Modernization Act. Most recently introduced in 2011, the bill proposed changing several regulations, including redefining the burden of proof for agents investigating firearms dealers accused of selling to prohibited individuals and capping fines for other violations."
----- ---- --- -- -
Appears that the gun dealer had little to worry about and a lot of lobbyists on his side.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:04 AM
I think it was "white privilege" that allowed him to purchase the gun. There's no other explanation:)....
What happens when the "liberal" progressive's regulate or ban everything?...They will have a major crisis on their hands then.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:05 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:51 AM
Theorist apparently has never heard of the U.S. Postal Service or Amtrak....
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:08 AM
BS (Highly appropriate initials.)
"Seems like you still haven't a clue about the "true cause" of the Civil War."
"I think it was "white privilege" that allowed him to purchase the gun."
More "wisdom" from someone who could well be an "honor" graduate from the Red Neck Institute of Lame Logic.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:12 AM
- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:04 AM
Yes, that is the hand wringing I referred to.... it is the NRA'S fault. How could it be anything else?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:15 AM
The killings are no more the NRA's fault than it is the "fault" of a "poorly functioning government."
No one is "wringing their hands" but I can see you sticking your head in the sand and blithely ignoring facts. I can see how that would be easier on you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:25 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:12 AM
Drink another prune juice scrooge, the "white privilege" comment was a joke.
Of course now that I think about it, "white privilege" hasn't helped you. 70 plus years old and still slaving away. Bummer.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:28 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:25 AM
Ignoring what facts? That your all empowered government might have screwed up?....
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:30 AM
shows how the NRA has repeatedly supported legislation to weaken several of the nation's gun laws-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:04 AM
The NRA does support the CONSTITUTION on gun ownership. Last time I checked the constitution trumped anti-constitutional "laws".
===
If it was a gift, the gifter is in trouble for a straw purchase, a possible felony, with consequences up to 10 years in jail and a $250,000 fine. -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:30 AM
Gifting to someone is not a felony or a "straw man" deal per se. More jumping ahead of the facts.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 11:02 AM
"Perhaps we are approaching a point in time where the majority of Americans see the desirability of passing a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd Amendment."
Unless and until that happens, politicians are obligated to uphold and defend the 2nd. And I will likely oppose your 28th, since it is highly unlikely your "update" will constitute an improvement.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:04 AM --
As allowed by the 1st amendment. I suppose you'll be wanting to "update" that one, as well.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 11:39 AM
More "wisdom" from someone who could well be an "honor" graduate from the Red Neck Institute of Lame Logic.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 10:12 AM
I bet the Red Neck Institute of Lame Logic still flys the Confederate Flag....:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 11:44 AM
"And I will likely oppose your 28th..."
Of course you can, and so can others, but it's clearly possible that at some point in the future, enough states and people will be persuaded that the time is right to exercise their Constitutional powers under Article V.
Will it take 10 more mass killings, or a hundred, or a thousand? It's hard to say, unfortunately, we'll just have to wait and see.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:04 PM
Regulating freedoms, you got to love it!..."Liberal" logic picking us apart one agenda at a time.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:28 PM
Common
Your brand of Wacko Leftist thinking will run it's course also. Anyone remember the probishionists from about a century ago? Isn't it wonderful what they did for the illegal alcohol trade? How did banning guns work for Germany? I'm sure some of your wackos think a modern day Hitler would do wonders for this country. You're moving in that direction.
And so far as head in sand, I daresay my eyes, nose and mouth are much clearer of debris than your own.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:29 PM
I would guess that you have no idea of what Article V of the Constitution requires.
So if Americans in 38 states decide something should be done, how does that get translated to "leftist" thinking?
And furthermore when have I ever said that all guns should be banned?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:45 PM
And furthermore when have I ever said that all guns should be banned?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:45 PM
You and I both know that is what most on the far left ultimately want to see. Just a nibble at a time you take away the freedoms that have been fought and died for by so many.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 1:15 PM
That's totally wrong on several counts. You may "think" it, but you don't "know" what the far left ultimately wants.
And I don't know that or even think it. In my opinion, the object has always been to put in place some realistic conditions on gun ownership and types available by closing loopholes and strengthening existing restrictions on automatic style weapons.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 1:37 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 1:37 PM
Common
What you consider "realistic conditions" the mainstream thinker calls onerous controls.
That has been established time and again on here.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:01 PM
"...the mainstream thinker..."
Who might that be?
And how would the elimination of 30 round magazines be considered an "onerous control?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:30 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:30 PM
Because that is just the first step towards eliminating all magazines or clips...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:38 PM
Will it take 10 more mass killings, or a hundred, or a thousand? It's hard to say, unfortunately, we'll just have to wait and see. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 12:04 PM
Banning flags and gun purchases won't stop anything. You've been told this and provided many facts that counter you and Theo's leftist logic on this.
-most of the "mass killings" were done with legally purchased guns. Period.
-many killings (including some "mass" killings) were accomplished without guns. Knives, hammers, machetes, etc. Take away guns and you'll see more of that.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:39 PM
"And how would the elimination of 30 round magazines be considered an "onerous control?"
Because it requires the citizens, which is to say the militia, to be lesser armed than would-be invaders, insurrectors, and oppressors. It is counter to the purpose of the 2nd Amendment protection.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:47 PM
Theorist: Were you tied up with rope that is causing your fixation with rope.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 3:02 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 2:58 PM
None.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 3:03 PM
"Watch out!!!! The sky, the sky!!!"
Do you have any idea how many mass graves are filled with people who thought "it can't happen here".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 3:16 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 3:19 PM
No, Seminky...Dug has often suggested rope as a weapon of murder...
Theorist: There you go again calling folks names, but that's ok when you're a Liberal Pinkett.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 4:10 PM
Dug has often suggested rope as a weapon of murder... -- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 4:06 PM
Do you not believe that rope is used in murder? What's your point?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 4:18 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 4:26 PM
Theorist: I didn't degrade Pres. Pinky, he did it all by himself.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 5:09 PM
Ever wonder why an adult would call others disrespectful names?
Can you imagine how sad the name caller's life must be?
-- Posted by CSIP2016 on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 8:13 PM
I see that Theorist has yet to provide a link to support that which she claims is known regarding parole and ineligibility...
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:26 PM
"And yet, Shapley...it never has..."
And I say that is to alrge extentbecause we haven't surrendered our right of the people to keep and bear arms.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:28 PM
"And yet, Shapley...it never has..."
And I say that is to alrge extentbecause we haven't surrendered our right of the people to keep and bear arms.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jun 25, 2015, at 9:28 PM
Rick, did you see what Louis Farrakhan said in a speech a couple of days ago at a church in Minnesota?
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 6:45 AM
I wonder what our three house "liberals" think about that speech?....
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 6:46 AM
Whatever he said makes little difference. It's not worth listening to.
Neither I nor anyone I am aware of, has ever claimed that all of the religious and political fanatics and crazy people are conservatives.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 7:04 AM
"...would-be invaders, insurrectors, and oppressors."
Sounds like the only thing standing between us and national annihilation by these "invaders," are the patriotic armed citizens with their 30 round magazines. Is the US military standing back, only watching and doing nothing? Or is the US Military actually imagined to be the "oppressors?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 7:16 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 7:16 AM
Common: Thought you knew that the U.S. Military can't do anything domestically only the State Militia which is comprised of the citizens of that state. Also, as backup is the "home guard" made up of those folks with guns and 30 round clips to protect your sorry ---.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 8:06 AM
"Is the US military standing back, only watching and doing nothing?"
You should read your Constitution. It tells us when we raise armies, why we have a Navy, and the role of militia vs. the military.
"Or is the US Military actually imagined to be the "oppressors?"
They are one possible tool of the oppressors, which is why the Constitution was written as it was written.
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
"To provide and maintain a Navy;
"To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
I would expect you, having been a military man, to understand the difference between the military and the militia, and also to understand the distinct role each of them serves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 8:06 AM
"Or is the US Military actually imagined to be the "oppressors?"
Consider this search for a teenager armed with an empty pistol:
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 8:59 AM
"Since Dylann violated the probation, what would be the charge now? Is it a felony as earlier reported??"
I keep asking you for evidence he was on probation, but you have provided none. What is your source for this. The reports I have say he was arrested at the mall for possession, and that he has not yet been tried on that charge. He was either out on bail or out on his own recognizance while awaiting trial. He has not been convicted, ergo he is not on probation, unless you have evidence to the contrary.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 9:28 AM
The "additional contact" with police was an informal interview with him in a park in which he was found in possession of firearms parts, but no firearm.
Still no evidence that he was ever on parole, probation, or had any prior conviction or factor which would have made him ineligible for purchase.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 9:29 AM
"The first offense can be , and will be , considered as a felony ."
Not in South Carolina, according to all available reports.
If he had been charged under federal law, that might be different. He was not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 9:31 AM
""...my, my...my agenda is to save lives...yours appears to be allowing people to purchase guns regardless....hmmmmm"
My agenda is to save lives, as well. We simply fear a different enemy.
More people have died at the hands of government than at the hands of crazed citizen gunmen.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 9:34 AM
"Mayhap I should have used a different word,..."
Yes, you should have. I provided explanations of the legal terms "parole" and "probation", both of which are post-conviction terms. You ignored that, even though you stated that he had not been convicted.
"... as this seems to have hung you up..."
Actually, it hung you up. That is to say, your entire premise, that he was ineligible to purchase a firearm because he was in violation of "parole" or "probation" was predicated on the premise that such conditions actually existed. They did not, based on all accounts provided so far. I asked repeatedly for evidence, and you ignored that, as well.
"He should not have been eligible to buy a gun, after all, he is crazy and killed nine people."
I also addressed that. There was no judgment issued that he was "crazy" (not a legal term, in any case), and he did had not killed one, let alone nine (to the best of anyone's knowledge) prior to the purchase. Unless you have some knowledge of time travel or predictive abilities the rest of society lacks, your argument is flawed.
I am going to guess that this will be as close to an admission that you were wrong in your assessment of what "we know", which is a long way from an admission. I think you once chided me for my unwillingness to admit error, and yet you claim the only reason you should have chose a different word than the clearly incorrect one was that it "seems to have hung [me] up..."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 10:26 AM
"... this search for a teenager ..."
What do those photos have to do with action of the US military forces?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 11:26 AM
"More people have died at the hands of government than at the hands of crazed citizen gunmen."
Really...
Try omitting all non-US governments, excluding all declared or undeclared wars, and all justifiable police actions, and compare that to the total number of American citizens killed by all other citizens (not just the 'crazed" ones.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 11:29 AM
Probation, parole, conviction, under indictment, etc. while they may seem simple and universal really aren't and may vary from state to state. For example,in Missouri, you can be on probation with deferred prosecution or suspended imposition of sentence, neither of which are considered to be convictions though may be considered "under indictment" for purposes of the federal statutes and if the probation is under the auspices of MBPP will be prohibited from possessing firearms if the originating charge is a felony or other disqualifying offense.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 11:45 AM
"What do those photos have to do with action of the US military forces?"
They reflect the over-response of the government to perceived threats. Start sending in the military, and it will get no better. Reflect upon the "Bonus Army", for example, we sent in the army to disperse a group of peaceably-assembled veterans.
"Try omitting all non-US governments, excluding all declared or undeclared wars, and all justifiable police actions, and compare that to the total number of American citizens killed by all other citizens (not just the 'crazed" ones.)"
When we randomly start putting conditions, we can prove anything.
Do we get to include Native Americans in territories not yet states?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 11:56 AM
"...and compare that to the total number of American citizens killed by all other citizens"
And does that include only wars undeclared by the government, or do we get to include one-man wars declared by the citizens in question?
My point stands. Governments have killed more, many times more, than private citizens acting on their own. To be sure, the number of killings by private citizens in generally inflated by advocates for gun control by including many of those governmental killings (citizens shot by police officers, for example) and by citizens who take their own lives (which, at the same time, many argue ought to be a right of free citizens, they simply don't want them using firearms to do it).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:01 PM
"This means the judge orders you to a term, similar to probation"...NOTE the word probation Shapley...not a post-conviction term here!"
Note the word "similar".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:04 PM
Still can't quite pull yourself to admit you were wrong, eh?
I am waiting for proof, still, that he was on parole, on probation, or adjudged to be "crazy"...
___________
"I believe he should not have been eligible to purchase a firearm. I believe that he should have been flagged if/when they did a background check.
"You believe he should have been eligible. Your belief cost 9 lives...."
9 lives were lost tragically, but it had nothing to do with my belief, just as your belief has saved zero lives. Typically, you try to pass some sort of blame for this event on those with whom you disagree. That is sad.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:08 PM
You have not yet said why he should have been "flagged". What had he done? He had been found in possession of a handful of prescription drugs, and was awaiting prosecution for that.
Meanwhile, in other parts of the world, lives are lost because there are no armed citizens to protect them. 28 tourists were gunned down in Tunisia earlier today. He was stopped by men with guns, in the end.
Tunisia has restrictive gun laws.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:13 PM
"For example,in Missouri, you can be on probation with deferred prosecution or suspended imposition of sentence, neither of which are considered to be convictions..."
Forgive my ignorance here, but how can you be sentenced, suspended or otherwise, without a conviction?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:15 PM
Because it is called a "suspended imposition" which means the proceedings are not completed and no sentenced entered in the record. If a person successfully completes a period of probation, they are discharged without a conviction thus all rights retained.
-- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:23 PM
"Because it is called a "suspended imposition" which means the proceedings are not completed and no sentenced entered in the record."
So, technically, a conviction occurs but, per agreement, will not be entered if the agreed-upon terms are met.
As the Skipper says in "The Sand Pebbles", it never happened unless it is written in the log.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:41 PM
Thanks to Shapley Hunter and Red_Rhino for lessons in Law 101....hopefully none of us will ever have need in these lessons.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 12:44 PM
"As far as this..."What had he done? He had been found in possession of a handful of prescription drugs, and was awaiting prosecution for that" You haven't read much about him, have you..."
I have tried to limit my reading regarding him to factual information - the type I have asked (and not received) for you to link, since you seem to have so much regarding him readily at hand.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 1:53 PM
"...but I am not "blaming" you for Dylann Roof's sins."
I disagree:
"Your belief cost 9 lives...."
Another poor choice of words, because I'm "hung up on it", no doubt?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 2:25 PM
"Your belief out of ignorance...it isn't really your fault...you just didn't know what you were doing."
So, now you say it is my fault. I am not ignorant, I know what I'm doing. The question is, do you?
______________
I'm not really bothered by your refusal to admit your errors, that appears to be your nature. But, I just hope you'll remember it next time you claim someone else won't admit theirs.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 3:11 PM
"Your belief out of ignorance..."
As I said, typical leftist: you don't agree with me, therefore you are ignorant.
Has it ever occurred to you that you could be wrong?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 3:14 PM
"So, you are saying you condone Dylann Roof owning a gun???"
And where did I say that? Clearly, now that he has committed a heinous crime, he ought to forever be denied that right.
What I have said is that, prior to the shooting, there was no reason he should not have had one. He had committed no felony, he had not been adjudged to be "crazy" (your word). I have asked you what criteria you think ought to be applied to denying him the right to own a firearm? Do you think one ought to be required to prove oneself worthy to exercise one's rights beforehand? If so, how do you square that with the concept of a "right"?
Or do you believe no such Constitutional right exists? Really?
"Really?"
Yes. Really. It is not about this one case, this one person. It is about the rights of free citizens in a free nation to exercise the rights that our forebears believed important enough to specifically protect within the founding document of this country. Really.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 3:44 PM
"I was wrong when I used the word parole...
Not really. All you said was "Mayhap I should have used a different word, as this seems to have hung you up..."
That is a far cry from "I was wrong".
And, given that much of what followed your use of the word was predicated upon the notion that he violated a parole (or probation) that never existed, you were wrong about a lot more than the word.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 3:46 PM
There are two questions involved:
First) Should he have owned a gun? The answer to that is "no". He should have understood that he was mentally ill-equipped for the responsibility.
Second) Should he have been denied the right to own a gun? The answer to that is also "no", based on what we currently know.
If the law is to mean anything (and recent court rulings indicate that it doesn't, sadly), there is no basis for making a determination that would have justified stripping him of access to that right.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:04 PM
There is nothing "typically" about this. I am trying to wait to find out exactly who bought the gun, where and why...you are the one who keeps asking for proof, where I got this, where I got that etc.
Theorist
That is not a true statement. Two days ago you appeared to have it all figured out.... at least it seem so from what you practically screamed at me. It follows below.
"Wrong! The seller, sold the gun without doing the necessary checks....so arrest him!"
You have been jumping to conclusions pretty much from the time this story first aired.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:16 PM
Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:16 PM
Sorry the first sentence of that post should have been in quotes.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:20 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:16 PM --
I concur. Theorist stated "Now...he was not convicted, but he was on parole for the above, and he had also recently been in trouble again for violating his parole. This we know."
We didn't know that. I asked for proof, and none was proffered. There is no evidence to support any of that, except the drug arrest, which was a misdemeanor under South Carolina state law. No evidence that he was "recently in trouble again" was shown.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:29 PM
SH
I have been following along just reading.
Logical thinking seems to be in short supply with the anti gun crowd. They deal more in hysterics.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:48 PM
"Dylann had been caught with narcotics (Feb. 28, 2015)..."
He was arrested but, as you noted, not convicted. There is no evidence he was under any suspended imposition of sentence, and the indication is that he had not yet gone to trial. Ergo, he was not under parole nor probation. Rhino posted no claim the deferred prosecution had been used in this case, and clearly noted that he was referring to Missouri law, not South Carolina's.
One has to wonder however, why you could not (and still have not) provided a link to this information. I have asked for it several times.
The ban would appear to be a mall requestion, akin to a restraining order. Being banned from a mall is not sufficient cause to be denied one's constitutional rights.
"...now why couldn't he have been flagged under the auspices of the MBPP and prevented from purchasing a firearm until his record was cleared (if it would have been)."
Because all of these appear to be misdemeanor charges.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:50 PM
"...I really wish someone could have heard or seen his desperate cries...."
Cries of what? "I really want to be allowed into the mall?" Trespassing on mall property constitutes two of the arrests. Hardly the stuff that suggests great evil intent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 4:53 PM
According to USA Today, Roof was convicted for the trespassing charge and fined $262. No mention of parole, probation, or any other condition. No mention was also made of whether he had yet been tried for the drug possession charge. It, too, was a misdemeanor.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 5:00 PM
The President gave impressive eulogy today. God bless him and those who were touched by what he said and meant.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 10:16 PM
The president gave a political speech, not a eulogy.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 11:05 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 11:41 PM
Call it what you will, but it was remarkable and honored the man who was killed by a racist white man. The people in attendance seemed to agree with the tone and message.
If it was a political speech, it was a good one. One of the best I've ever heard. Thank you for helping me realize that. Wow!
-- Posted by Deb56 on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 1:11 AM
-- Posted by Username1 on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 1:11 AM
Example of a PC-bootlicker.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 6:28 AM
It was a political speech by a racist. Not going to call him a black man because he is only a 50 percenter. He is 50% white privileged.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 7:28 AM
He is 50% white, but the privilege comes from the 'color' of your skin...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 7:43 AM
According to who?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 7:59 AM
We're you to know some black Americans, you wouldn't have to ask.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:03 AM
Very pleased with the Supreme Court yesterday. Very pleased with their wisdom and decisions.
-- Posted by Reasoning on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:03 AM
No what it really is..... just more politically correct BS.
Common, you have no idea who I know. And the black people who I do associate with are like myself. Color does not enter the picture.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:21 AM
"sometimes a lot of humor helps too ."
Exactly, a young black guy I know who works the front desk was taking a smoke break while I was leaving the parking garage. I paused, we chatted and I went on. Four hours later on returning, he was taking another break and standing in the same spot as when I left. I paused again and quizzed him.... you still on break? He grinned real big, and said yes. We laughed and went on. I would have done exactly the same thing if he was one of my white friends.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:49 AM
.
-- Posted by Username1 on Fri, Jun 26, 2015, at 10:16 PM
Maybe too much Kardashians and Bruce Jenner for you .
Actually , Kim Kardashian could beat Hillary Clinton by popular vote...
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 4:34 AM
What? These are strange statements and relate to...nothing.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 9:04 AM
Good for Oklahoma!!!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 9:53 AM
The Supreme Court has just made legislation from the bench, which is totally illegal and unconstitutional...The federal government is totally out of control and people like Reasoning and Lefty applaud it...Sad.
-- Posted by BonScott on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 9:59 AM
Think about it for awhile , it'll come to you .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 9:43 AM
Don't think it will, but then I'm not into their lives as you must be and I'm not impacted by what they do or say. I still believe the eulogy President Obama gave was meaningful and appropriate considering the man it eulogized.
BTW Rick, are you judging? Or what about the 6:28 & 7:28 posts, are they judging? Call them out like you did me. Interesting lack of consistency.
-- Posted by Deb56 on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:09 AM
BonScott
It supports their Leftist agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:09 AM
BonScott
It supports their Leftist agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:09 AM
You got that right Wheels....What's next, being able to marry your sister or brother?
-- Posted by BonScott on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:14 AM
"And the black people who I do associate with are like myself."
And not a single one of them will tell you what "white privilege" is?
I'll take a wild guess and say they probably work for you or did at some time.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:18 AM
As for the Confederate flag, I'd suggest the not all southerners that display are racist, but those that are racist are most likely to be ones displaying it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:21 AM
common, you do realize there are people who live in the north who are racist as well don't you?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:36 AM
And not a single one of them will tell you what "white privilege" is?
I'll take a wild guess and say they probably work for you or did at some time.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:18 AM
Common
White privilege or the lack of it has never come up in our conversation. I don't think any of us have sought out the others for our skin color.
Next question..... wrong again quiz kid.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:55 AM
"Next question..."
So those "associates" do or did work for you. My impression is that you are the type of supervisor that doesn't tolerate any disagreement, especially from lowly employees.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 2:35 PM
I've been away and am just starting to catch up on the threads little at a time. I thought this one was going a different direction, but I can always count on common to bring it back to race and accuse someone of being racist.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 4:09 PM
Who is being "accused?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 6:30 PM
So those "associates" do or did work for you. My impression is that you are the type of supervisor that doesn't tolerate any disagreement, especially from lowly employees.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 2:35 PM
No Common
You guessed wrong again.
I have never employed a black person. Not because I would not.... but because I have not ever had a black person apply for a vacancy. Never had many vacancies. One of my past employees just celebrated 40 years with the company last year and is still there. He never fails to stop and talk to me when I am at the farm.
My employees were and are like family to me.
I lost one to cancer just over a year ago.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 6:37 PM
"I have never employed a black person."
Why does that not surprise anyone. Sounds a bit like the "Irishmen need not apply" signs from the past.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:45 PM
"I have never employed a black person."
Why does that not surprise anyone. Sounds a bit like the "Irishmen need not apply" signs from the past.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:45 PM
I am glad you posted only that which suited your purpose from my statement Common.
It shows what a lying piece of crap you really are.
Let this be a warning to others..... post something honest and from the heart and trash like Common will try to turn it against you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:02 PM
Who is being "accused?"
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 6:30 PM
I think you just answered yourself.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:11 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:11 PM
Yes, Old John..... you can always depend on low life's like Common!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:40 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:11 PM
Yes, Old John..... you can always depend on low life's like Common!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:40 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:11 PM
Yes, Old John..... you can always depend on low life's like Common!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:40 PM
Hmmmmm! Not quite sure how I did that. But it needed repeating anyway.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:43 PM
OK, it is closing in on an hour and I have heard nothing in response from the two bit nothing that posted a lie about me!
Not surprising.... all mouth and no substance.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:57 PM
Wheels, Don't worry he will have his defenders chime in tomorrow.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:34 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ÁÙ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:02 PM
Amen to that Wheels!! Pretty much sums it up.
-- Posted by BonScott on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 11:41 PM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 10:02
It's a habit with Common. Kinda like Theo telling you not to interject yourself in a thread discussion. When they get schooled, they try and tell you what to do or make up some irrelevant post.
I've never figured out why they do it - must be a liberal trait.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:09 AM
It is not the first time Common has twisted something I said into a bald faced lie. I am tired of it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:17 AM
Wheels, don't let common bother you. From what I've gathered, you're in a lot better place than he is in life.
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:32 AM
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:32 AM
Thanks BonScott. He's not going to bother me. I may bother him a little if he comes out from under his rock.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:18 AM
Wheels: Drove thru Bollinger County yesterday on the way to Elephant Rocks State Park and saw where "Common" lives....the trailer had a photo of Pres. Pinky on one whole side of it.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 8:29 AM
Theorist,
I'm surprised you went after Dug instead of correcting Common for his lies.
You know the underdog thing.... with you being the self proclaimed Independent that you are.
And then there is the Seminky issue...... kind of like you're making a Polish joke. Thought you Leftists were against anyone or anything that isn't politically correct. Wouldn't that be a hate crime?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:36 AM
Theorist,
I'm surprised you went after Dug instead of correcting Common for his lies.
You know the underdog thing.... with you being the self proclaimed Independent that you are.
And then there is the Seminky issue...... kind of like you're making a Polish joke. Thought you Leftists were against anyone or anything that isn't politically correct. Wouldn't that be a hate crime?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:36 AM
Theorist
Stoddard County is heavy Democrat country, you putting them down now?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:40 AM
Theorist
Stoddard County is heavy Democrat country, you putting them down now?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:54 AM
Drat! Not sure why the double dribble.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:58 AM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 9:12 AM
Theorist: I'm a proud 4th generation Scott County. Have a great day "Pinkett".
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:10 PM
Wheels, Stoddard County has actually swung more Republican in the last few years...
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:35 PM
"...correcting Common for his lies."
That's because there were none.
It's always easy to tell when Mr. Wheel is losing, he starts with this childish name calling. For an individual that seemingly tries to portray an impression of maturity and intelligence, jumping to faulty conclusions and resorting to futile attempts at verbal abuse, paints the opposite picture.
First of all there was no "bald-faced lie." What Mr. Wheels said was, "I have never employed a black person. Not because I would not.... but because I have not ever had a black person apply for a vacancy. Never had many vacancies," which is all well and good.
My comment was simply that in the past, many small companies had a policy, either written, or tacitly, that certain groups "need not apply." If that's not the circumstance with the company Mr. Wheel runs, or ran, then that's a good thing.
In any case, my suggesting that something "sounds like" something to me, is not accusatory in any fashion.
The issue being discussed was the concept of "white privilege"
Mr. Wheel explained that, "White privilege or the lack of it has never come up in our conversation. I don't think any of us have sought out the others for our skin color."
My contention is still that if Mr. Wheel were to ask one of those "...black people who [he does] associate with"... about "white privilege" they would explain it to him. The possibility that "it never came up" does not mean it doesn't exist. Maybe he should try to learn more.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:49 PM
He is 50% white, but the privilege comes from the 'color' of your skin...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 7:43 AM
According to who?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 7:59 AM
We're you to know some black Americans, you wouldn't have to ask.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:03 AM
Common,
Here is where you stick your beak into a conversation I am having with others..
So, since you are relatively illiterate, I will correct your English as well. You apparently meant "were" which is not spelled we're.
So those "associates" do or did work for you. My impression is that you are the type of supervisor that doesn't tolerate any disagreement, especially from lowly employees.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 2:35 PM
I explained to you the black people I know had never worked for me and gave you an honest reason for it. as follows........
I have never employed a black person. Not because I would not.... but because I have not ever had a black person apply for a vacancy. Never had many vacancies. One of my past employees just celebrated 40 years with the company last year and is still there. He never fails to stop and talk to me when I am at the farm.
My employees were and are like family to me.
I lost one to cancer just over a year ago.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 6:37 PM
There are several reasons there were no black applicants. Mostly because there are not that many trained in the field that I needed applicants from. Notice I did not say no blacks trained in the field.
With being perfectly frank and honest you launch into me with accusations and lies.
Try this one....
"I have never employed a black person."
Why does that not surprise anyone. Sounds a bit like the "Irishmen need not apply" signs from the past.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jun 27, 2015, at 8:45 PM
This is where you lie in suggesting I circumvented hiring black people as if I were doing business in the 1800's instead of the latter 1900's and into this century.
It has been a long time since it has been legal to discriminate in hiring.
I am proud of my years in the business and the past 15 years my kids have run the business and our reputation, honesty and fairness in conducting business for the past 52 plus years.
I do not need people lying about me and will face it head on when it happens. I especially do not need to be talked down to by some flunky who I suspect, from following a few years of conversation on here, did nothing more than filled up a backroom office chair for enough years to retire from the military.
I will put my life's accomplished up beside yours any day little man.
" The issue being discussed was the concept of "white privilege"
Mr. Wheel explained that, "White privilege or the lack of it has never come up in our conversation. I don't think any of us have sought out the others for our skin color."
My contention is still that if Mr. Wheel were to ask one of those "...black people who [he does] associate with"... about "white privilege" they would explain it to him. The possibility that "it never came up" does not mean it doesn't exist. Maybe he should try to learn more."
And perhaps you should mind your own business. What my friends and I discuss is strictly our business. I do not see a boogeyman behind every bush as you apparently do. "White Privilege" so far as I am concerned is next to non existent if not totally so.
You are everything I said you were. Stop throwing half truths into the picture and making a lie out of it.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 5:49 PM
It's always easy to tell when Mr. Wheel is losing, he starts with this childish name calling. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:49 PM
===
Duggie...-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jun 18, 2015, at 1:43 PM
Duggie -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jun 17, 2015, at 9:30 PM
===
Liberals like these two are all over the board. One thing is consistent with these socialists - hypocrisy. Count on it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:26 PM
why the tears?? -- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:39 PM
No tears, only laughter. I don't mind getting called names - I give it right back.
Hypocrisy is doing that then complaining or whining about it - like you and your friend Common do.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:44 PM
My, My...you call me Theo all the time! Duggie is just a youthful name for Dug...why the tears??
-- Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:39 PM
Once again Theorist, you have missed the point....The conservatives on this board don't whine and cry about name calling, judging, etc. You "liberals" and "Independents"(wink,wink) however do. And then you turn around and do the very thing you whine and cry about...That equals hypocracy.
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:49 PM
Dug, it appears you type faster than I do. 😊
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:51 PM
Wheels, Stoddard County has actually swung more Republican in the last few years...
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 12:35 PM
Ok, I was not aware of that BonScott, I was thinking of past years. Maybe that is why Theorist seems unhappy with Stoddard County. Sounds like the Leftist movement is losing them some clientele there. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:51 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 7:51 PMj
I don't know about that! :-)
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 8:04 PM
"Stop throwing half truths into the picture and making a lie out of it."
It's amazing that someone claiming to be so successful understands so little. Make all the self-important assertions you want.
I have neither the need nor the desire to sink to your level of ignorance. The unique aspect of your "white privilege" is that you have it whether you realize it or not. Finding some bogus editorial on a right wing site means absolutely nothing. Possibly if you were to try to think for yourself.
But you are right about one thing, I really have no idea who you are, how lucrative your business is, or what kind of a reputation it has. All I can judge you on is the bragging I read on here, this foolish name-calling, your insistence that only your opinion matters, and that everyone that that would dare to disagree with is some manner of low-life. You're also right about what you and friends talk about being your business, and I wouldn't dare hazard a guess about it for fear of offending you again.
And of course, you whine about other people's comments, but have no hesitation about making up stories and lies about me. You could even call it "...throwing half truths into the picture and making a lie out of it."
I know you are wrong about that too, but have little concern recognizing the source. As far as accomplishments are concerned, it seems you're confusing making money with actual service. The last thing I would do is worry about what your opinion is, but I do feel sorry for you and your apparent inability to face reality.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 9:45 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 9:45 PM
I don't know whether to laugh at this post or laugh really hard at this post...
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:33 PM
You're really cute when you're angry Common.
Everybody on here knows what you are. The belittling started with you a long time ago when you were disagreed with.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:36 PM
You're really cute when you're angry Common.
Everybody on here knows what you are. The belittling started with you a long time ago when you were disagreed with.
You've been caught lying befoe.
You quoted me on something I did not say and you had to retract it.
Then you accused me of saying I hated Obama and that was a lie, I did not say that ever.
Keep living in your little dream world.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jun 28, 2015, at 10:38 PM
No "anger" at all.
I've simply pointed out that your "contributions" are severely limited and usually center on whining and complaining about the President, about society, about race relations, about immigration, about the economy, about international relations, about unemployment, and so on and so on...
That's the reason that my opinion of you is so negative. I can't recall your having and original thought or post, or anything positive. As mentioned various times previously, the country survived President Bush and will survive President Obama in much better shape.
So you're welcome to continue to wallow in your pessimism and paranoia. If you feel "belittled," maybe it's because you make it so easy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 7:54 AM
Back in the 50's Pat sang "I've Almost Lost my Mind" and now he seems to have succeeded. Perhaps he should go back to "Writing Love Letters in the Sand."
"...we as a people have largely, though not completely, put to rest any image of America as an ongoing 'racist' nation."
In my opinion the rest of the world does not see the US as a "racist" nation and never has.
We have always had a more diverse population than any other country on the planet. Were what Pat Boone said true, why is the US the most favored destination for immigration in the world?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:05 AM
why is the US the most favored destination for immigration in the world? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:05 AM
Because the laws on immigration are not being followed or enforced by your president. The Obama "open door" policy is well known - worldwide.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:07 AM
We have always had a more diverse population than any other country on the planet. Were what Pat Boone said true, why is the US the most favored destination for immigration in the world?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:05 AM
It used to be because immigrants knew if they worked hard, they could succeed and have a better life. Now, they don't even have to work and they get free stuff...Man, has times changed!
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:11 AM
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:11 AM
Even more true!
If I were living in Africa or South America and wanted a "free phone" I could illegally come to America and get food, housing, phones and insurance for doing nothing - but couch sitting.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:18 AM
Common is angry this morning. He tried picking a fight with me Saturday and succeeded, he should be happy but he isn't.
His pattern on here has been and still is,anyone saying anything about his Messiah is bad.
No Mr. Common, you haven't singled me out to belittle.... it has been anyone and everyone bold enough to speak the truth about your Messiah. Think of some of the names you have referred to those who have disagreed with you.
You are what you are... I see nothing that will change that.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:42 AM
"...speak the truth about your Messiah."
That says it all in a "nut shell." As far as I'm concerned I have no anger, there is no "messiah" and there is certainly no truth being "spoken."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:12 AM
Mr. Common, maybe some of the other posters have an on that.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:23 AM
And yes, until proven wrong, I am sticking to my opinion of you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:26 AM
As far as I'm concerned I have no anger, there is no "messiah" and there is certainly no truth being "spoken." -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:12 AM
Curiously this posts lists 3 things about yourself. Including "there is certainly no truth being spoken".
Freudian slip there?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Dug I think his anchor is dragging.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:46 AM
Dug I think his anchor is dragging. -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:46 AM
I'm thinking that "anchor" might be that "tail" between his legs?
:-)
That's "a little sarcasm" Common - in case you have no sense of humor or are not sure what sarcasm is.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:58 AM
"And yes, until proven wrong, I am sticking to my opinion of you."
That's your privilege, and coincidentally describes exactly my very low opinion of you. Could call it a stalemate, except I have no problem accepting various points of view.
Just as an example, from above, I don't believe that America is a "racist" country, and don't believe that the rest of the world has that impression. And, in my mind, race relations have been improving since the 60's and continue to do so. Race relations aren't perfect but clearly better that in the past.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 10:12 AM
Yes Common, race relations are at an all time high. That is why we have Ferguson, the little issue in PA, the recent shooting spree in the black Church. Of course things have never been better.
Get your head out of it!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 10:39 AM
And yes, until proven wrong, I am sticking to my opinion of you.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 1:54 PM
Sorry a repeat. New phone is a pain.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 2:02 PM
"Of course things have never been better."
Again, you must have a short memory, or just block things out that disturb you.
There were 29 identifiable riots from 1963 until MLK was killed, riots in 125 cities after his death, 14 more at various locations until the date that Rodney King was arrested, four more from then to 2005.
Since then there have been three in Oakland, St. Louis and Baltimore, and in each of those cases unarmed people were shot.
You're probably confused about Charleston and why there were no riots. When Walter Scott was shot, the police officer at first claimed he fired in self defense, but then the video surfaced and it was plain that he was shot in the back, and Officer Slager was charged. Result, no riot.
With regard to the church shooting, again the shooter was arrested and charged, and again no riots.
For most of us that makes it pretty clear that when justice is served, there are no repercussions. When justice is denied or questionable, problems surface.
But if you delude yourself into believing things are worse now than ever before, you're really beyond help.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 3:20 PM
Even the Staten Island incident did not cause riots. And I'm sticking to my very low opinion of you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 3:24 PM
And I'm sticking to my very low opinion of you. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 3:24 PM
I wear that opinion as a badge of honor and confirmation that what I say is true - despite what a far-left Obama worshipper would think.
Because the only person you hold in "high" opinion is your role model - Barack Hussein Obama. Thanks for keeping several of us out of that ring of corruption and incompetence.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 4:56 PM
As usual, you're making things up. I would suspect that Mr. Wheel would call that lying; fortunately I am not as obsessed as some.
Staying in your imaginary world, makes the rest of us safer.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 5:39 PM
I keep seeing it over and over, lie and then accuse anyone that objects of being the liar.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 6:00 PM
What lie?
Who is being accused?
Of what?
Try reading what I said once more.
You'll be much happier.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 6:17 PM
What lie? Who is being accused? Of what? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 6:17 PM
Looks like another lefty liberal melt down. Kinda "Spaniard-esque". Seems to be a pattern with these Obama worshipping democrats.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 6:26 PM
Should you be able, you're welcome to answer any of the above questions also.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 6:43 PM
common, I'm about as happy as I can stand being blessed far beyond what I deserve recently. I wish you such too but still think you are full of bologna so to speak.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 7:59 PM
Still no answers though. Didn't expect much of a reply in any case.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 8:15 PM
I've found giving answers to some people will just be twisted around into more rhetoric.
Oh and I don't need or ask for your welcome.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:12 PM
What lie?
Well putting words into quotes and then attributing them to someone who did not utter them would be a start.
Who is being accused?
You are little man.
Of what?
Lying that is what!
There are your answers Mr. Common.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:23 PM
More plain BS and whining from Mr. Wheel.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:35 PM
More plain BS and whining from Mr. Wheel.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:35 PM
Would you like me to dig that incident up Mr. Common? Along with your admission that you should not have used quotes?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 9:45 PM
Hmmmmm! Guess the cat must have got Mr. Common's tongue.
Do you have an answer for my questions Mr. Common? I answered yours.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 10:04 PM
Did ISIS attack Scopus?
Mr Common appears to have gone dark!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 10:18 PM
Speaking of Scopus, is there still a little Opry there?
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 10:25 PM
Semo471,
I have no idea. I have only been there once in my entire life.
Perhaps you are thinking of the Little Old Opry. But that is on Hy 34, and not in town.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jun 29, 2015, at 10:35 PM
Common,
I been waiting to hear from you, but I have to go to bed now.
You can let me know in the morning if it will be necessary to repost the pertinent information from March 14 thru 16 or the whole thing.... whatever you would like.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 12:19 AM
"Would you like me to dig..."
Do whatever you like. I don't really care. An insignificant mistake or error in punctuation some time ago is irrelevant to me. If it excites you to make a molehill out of an anthill, have at it. I did notice that your righteous indignation did not prevent you from making up lies about my military service.
With respect to the current topic, it continues to astonish some of us that you have no idea that "white privilege" still exists and flourishes in much of society. As I mentioned above, since you have it, you've apparently been somehow able to blind yourself to the entire issue.
It's equally amazing that you can interpret the "...recent shooting spree in the black Church," as supposed "evidence" of a worsening climate of "race relations" when in fact it's just the opposite. The occasion of some deranged individual taking out a gun and shooting a bunch of innocent people is unfortunately nothing new or different in today's America. The killer's intended result, to aggravate racial tensions to "war," failed completely, and the act brought Americans closer together.
I have little confidence that you understand this, and am afraid that it's been lost on you due to your close-minded nature.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 7:58 AM
If it excites you to make a molehill out of an anthill, have at it. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 7:58 AM
The only person doing that is you. The melt down continues...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 8:04 AM
I wonder what common's conservative kids think about him?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 8:14 AM
Well Good Morning!
Mr. Common
As usual, you're really cute when angry. I will be back shortly.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 8:40 AM
Wheels: I wouldn't waste my time trying to communicate with Common, his head is as hard as the ground where is trailer is parked.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 9:21 AM
"I saw that Obama was evil in 2007 and he will destroy the nation..."
Narrow-minded, yes. Closed minded, for sure.
Open-minded, no way.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Mar 14, 2015, at 8:21 PM
And finally after about 3 days of twisting and turning, your half hearted apology where you admitted it was "my interpretation".............
When you add "...found him offensive..." to "...towards the destruction of America." it's right up there with "he is evil" and "wants to destroy our nation."
So if you now want to go back and deny you made the above statements, that's your choice, but I see nothing erroneous, dishonest nor untruthful in my interpretation. Should you choose to declare that the President is not really evil and does not intend to destroy our nation, then I would stand corrected.
In either case, I do apologize for the inadvertent use of the quotation marks.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Mar 16, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Yes Mr. Common, you should never give your interpretation of something without making it clear it is your interpretation.
You asked last night "What lie?"
I told you! You said "More plain BS and whining from Mr. Wheel."
So please find above the proof that it was not "BS" and "whining"
I left out pages after pages of your twisting and turning before you apologized to not bore everybody to death and wast more cyberspace.
Stick to the truth with your quotes from me and your insinuations about me and we do not have to go through this again.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 9:46 AM
Wheels: I wouldn't waste my time trying to communicate with Common, his head is as hard as the ground where is trailer is parked.
-- Posted by semo471 on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 9:21 AM
Actually Semo471 it wasn't a lot of time.... I was using my phone early and went to boot my computer to make things easier. Got a boot error and when it went to report my virus protection decided it was time to do a complete virus check and that took some 40 minutes or so and then it decided to reboot again and correctly this time.
My computer is more "determined" than my wife when it makes up it's mind it is going to do something.
I said "determined" was that politically correct enough?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 9:53 AM
Wheels: Yes, especially if she is standing behind you ;-)
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 11:23 AM
It's still BS and whining...
...but, nevertheless, since you appear to be such a sensitive soul and so easily offended, I'll try very hard to keep from pointing out where you're so often wrong.
As a further courtesy, hereafter, I won't even bring up your making up lies about my military service.
And finally, also to be helpful in furthering your opportunities to learn about the real world, I added a link to the text of the eulogy from last Friday. Should be edifying for you.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 12:21 PM
In my opinion, that was all for and about Obama.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 2:37 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 12:21 PM
Mr. Common
The problem is that you point out where I disagree with you, not when I am wrong. You would have a hell of a lot less to say if you only pointed out where I was wrong.
Now, regarding your military service. I never lied about anything The following is what I said and only what I said. Please find where you claim I lied there.
"I do not need people lying about me and will face it head on when it happens. I especially do not need to be talked down to by some flunky who I suspect, from following a few years of conversation on here, did nothing more than filled up a backroom office chair for enough years to retire from the military." I said I suspect get it????
Regarding your link to Obama's political speech last Friday. I am not the slightest bit interested. Rarely watch political speeches and have not watched more than excerpts of Obama's teleprompter readings since early 2008. So save your breath.
Mr. Common, you may as well learn that you are not going to ever persuade me to follow a total failure of a man and a failing political system.... so just give it a rest. It will be easier for all concerned.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 5:09 PM
"...that you point out where I disagree with you..."
That's only half complete, the disagreement stems from you being wrong.
As an example, it may be your heartfelt opinion that the world is flat, and you're welcome to that opinion, but you're wrong.
If the President were a"... total failure of a man and a failing political system..." then his approval rating should be about zero. Instead his approval has risen to 50%. You're welcome to have your opinion, but not your own facts.
You're wrong about the clear existence of "white privilege." Denying it as it being your "opinion" is fine but you're wrong about it not being real.
You claim that racial relations are worse now than ever before. Not only do the statistics of racial violence dispute that, the fact that a black American has been elected twice, proves that blacks can now successfully compete for the highest office in the nation. Previously, black parents could never have honestly told children that "even they could grow up to be President."
And since you brought it up again, there is no question that you are totally wrong about my military career. The fact that you presented the lies you made up under a cloak of "I suspect" is irrelevant. Since I can easily shrug that off in knowing the source of the lie, I can let it go.
Pointing out where you are wrong, is easy, but I have zero desire to persuade you about anything, as I realize that you seem to be one of those old men that get easily confused by facts and new information.
And I'm done with this...
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 9:42 PM
." Previously, black parents could never have honestly told children that "even they could grow up to be President."
Yes, they could. Otherwise, Mr. Obama's black parent could not have honestly made that claim.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 10:19 PM
"You're welcome to have your opinion, but not your own facts."
You keep repeating that, but opinion polls ate opinions, and not facts. Statistics regarding opinions are not facts, either, they ate extrapolations of opinionS.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 10:21 PM
If race relations are now so good, why are you so stuck on white privilege?
You have my permission to be wrong but that doesn't mean you're entitled to make up your own opinion and think you are right.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 10:22 PM
That was supposed to be "are opinions", not "ate". Sorry.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 10:22 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 9:42 PM
Well Common, if being 180 degrees on my thoughts to yours, I am very pleased to be called wrong by small people like yourself.
From your point of view, I think you see most posters as wrong with you being the only correct one. You might want to think about that a bit, how can everybody be wrong but you.
Common the last race riots I remember in St. Louis were somewhere back in the 60's and 70's. Up to now anyway.... every heard of a little town called Ferguson.
You feature me any way you want so long as you do not start putting words in my mouth that I do not or did not ever say.
You may think you are a learned individual... I look upon you as a mental midget for having such a devotion to a failure of a politician no matter what he does or says. And he has set race relations back years, if or not you are smart enough to recognize it.
I might add, this last post of yours is the highlight of your career so far in spreading BS. You have a nice night little man.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 10:39 PM
Old John,
Just thinking, I would love to be able to buy Common for what he is worth and find a market for him for what he thinks he is worth.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jun 30, 2015, at 11:01 PM
"...[President] Obama's black parent could not have honestly made that claim."
Nowhere have I ever heard or read that the senior Obama told his son that he could grow up to be President.
In American tradition or folklore, it has been frequently maintained that white parents have told their sons that "in America, anyone can grow up to be President, you can if you work hard, study, do well in school."
It is extremely doubtful that prior to 2008, black parents told the same story.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 11:56 AM
Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 11:56 AM
Common: Is that parent or parents and how do you know or doubt what they beieved.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:05 PM
"Nowhere have I ever heard or read that the senior Obama told his son that he could grow up to be President."
That's rather immaterial. The point is that the son of a black father, who grew up prior to 2008, was elected President of the United States. Ergo, your claim that black parents could not make that claim prior to 2008 was clearly wrong.
"In American tradition or folklore, it has been frequently maintained that white parents have told their sons that "in America, anyone can grow up to be President, you can if you work hard, study, do well in school."
"It is extremely doubtful that prior to 2008, black parents told the same story."
Flip Wilson used to tell one of his funny stories, included on a record album in the 1960s, in which he references being told that America was the "Land of Opportunity", of a man with no brain becoming the Governor of Alabama. As I recall, the story was related as a response to a young man whose father told him he could grow up to be President, when Mr. Wilson was asked he believed that was true.
In fact, it was common when I was in school to use the term "Land of Opportunity" and to make the statement that anyone could grow up to be the President of the United States. You seem to sell black parents short when you make such claims, as many black people felt strongly about the future of America, and about the chances their children would enjoy.
If they felt so helpless, methinks they would not have taken to the streets to demand the opportunities that America promised. Rev. King had a dream in which he children would be judged by the content of their character, and many parents taught their children that dream could be fulfilled.
Mr. Obama did not cause that. Per his own observations: other people made that happen. He is the recipient of the promise that others brought to fruition. Mr. Obama would not be president today if black parents had not believed decades ago in the promise that it would one day be possible.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:12 PM
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:04 PM
Theorist: Do you really believe this or did you copy/paste it. I don't believe in white, red, yellow, brown, or black privilege....only the American privilege.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:23 PM
"...opinion polls are opinions, and not facts."
True enough, but there are plenty of occasions where people base their opinions on their "own facts."
For example, it is a fact that there are instances of election fraud in our country. It is also the case that this problem involves, almost entirely, registration and absentee voting fraud. The existence of a photo ID requirement would not prevent those sorts of cheating.
Yet the frequent claim, that proposed photo ID laws would prevent massive voting fraud, is almost always portrayed as "fact" when it is not true.
Another example is when individuals use factual events, such as riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, to declare and argue that race relations are in fact worse now than before (with some saying ever before).
The factual occurrence and record of race riots shows that over 60 took place since 1963, and over one hundred more just resulting from MLK's murder. The last lynchings in the south were just 70 years ago.
And some will still try to make up their "own facts" on how bad race relations are now.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:29 PM
"You seem to sell black parents short when you make such claims, as many black people felt strongly about the future of America, and about the chances their children would enjoy."
I'm not "selling them short" at all. I agree that black parents were just as apt as white parents to encourage their children to share in the promise and future of America.
To me it is very unlikely that black parents told their children they had as much chance of being elected president as any other child.
I recall clearly that after President Obama's first election, the numerous black Americans that were interviewed saying specifically, "In my wildest dreams, I never believed that I would live to see this day."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:37 PM
"To me it is very unlikely that black parents told their children they had as much chance of being elected president as any other child."
That wasn't the original claim. But, at the same time, I'm no Jimmy the Greek, so I have no idea what the odds are that any given child will grow up to be President, regardless of race.
The odds would appear to favour those born into politically-connected families, but there have been exceptions. The odds also seem to favour those who are born wealthy but, again, there have been exceptions. The odds favour those who hail from certain states, such as Ohio, New York, and Virginia.
The fact is that is that the odds are against the vast majority of children born in the United States ever being President, regardless of race, creed, or colour. There are just under 4 million children born in the United States each year. They will see approximately a dozen presidential elections held from their age of eligibility until their death or likely determination that they are "too old to be elected". Those ain't good odds, no matter who you are. But the purpose of telling children that was because it inspired them to do well - to struggle forward regardless of the odds - because whatever other factors affect eligibility - completion of an education is a common factor among all those chosen. It does not matter if you are black or white or red or yellow, your odds of becoming President of the United States approaches zero if you do not complete your education.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:52 PM
It is extremely doubtful that prior to 2008, black parents told the same story.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 11:56 AM
Wonder what black parent/s in Kenya told their children.
The awareness of "white privilege" is a contributing factor of improved race relationships. Once you are aware of the inherent privileges you possess, you become more aware of the disadvantages of others...assuming you are capable of empathy...relations will improve.
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 12:04 PM
That sounds to me the same mindset that thinks charity is giving back.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:00 PM
"Yet the frequent claim, that proposed photo ID laws would prevent massive voting fraud, is almost always portrayed as "fact" when it is not true."
There, again, you cannot prove that it is not true. You accept as a 'fact' the claim it is not true.
As I have pointed out before, if voter fraud is occurring in the absence of ID, it is unlikely to be provable unless and until ID requirements are passed.
"Another example is when individuals use factual events, such as riots in Ferguson and Baltimore, to declare and argue that race relations are in fact worse now than before (with some saying ever before)."
You cite evidence to the contrary, which is all well and good, but you cannot prove it anymore than they can prove their opinion. Hate crime statistics are a relatively recent construct, so we do not have long-term evidence to support the argument that they are fewer now.
I do not support their claims of facts, but your attempts to dispute them non-factual "facts" is just as bad. Citing opinion polls, as you did, to back up your claim as "factual" was rather poor.
The argument was made by "the Left" that the country was never more divided than it was during the Bush years. I challenged that fact. After all, the country went to war against itself in the 1800s, something we have not done since, even in the Bush years. They claimed race relations were the worst ever during the Bush years, and yet we elected a black man to the presidency during Mr. Bush's term in office. All of these were cited as "fact" at the time.
It was cited as a "fact" that Mr. Bush was the worst president ever, or in the last 50 years, or in the last 100 years, and yet each could be countered. To be sure, the question of "best" or "worst" president is an opinion, and the measure of opinion is fickle, and is subject to the failings of memory and of education.
The fact is we never know all the facts, and many things people, including yourself, cite as factual are not.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:05 PM
It would seem that earlier, a "poster" (who can remain anonymous to prevent his further embarrassment) stated that his thoughts are 180 degrees to my thoughts.
Perhaps this is worth thinking through...
Since I think that America is the best country in the world....
I would then suspect that he must think that America is the worst country in the world.
----- ---- --- -- -
Since I think that the US military is a force for good....
I would then suspect that he must think that the US military is a force for evil.
----- ---- --- -- -
Since I think that our government should reduce deficits....
I would then suspect that he must think that our government should spend more.
----- ---- --- -- -
Since I think that too many politicians are bribed with political donations....
I would then suspect that he must think that politicians deserve all the payoffs they can get.
----- ---- --- -- -
Since I think that almost all American people are honest and hard working....
I would then suspect that he must think that those Americans are dishonest and lazy.
----- ---- --- -- -
Since I think that Social Security and Medicare should be stabilized to live within their means ....
I would then suspect that he must think that Social Security and Medicare should expanded without regard to cost.
----- ---- --- -- -
I could go on, but I think you get the point. There are just some things that there's no ready cure for.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM
"White Privilege" is an example of that of which I speak. The concept entered the lexicon in the 1930s, but the term was not coined until the 1970s, from what I gather. It is a clinical term, used to explain away inequalities, real and perceived, that are based on race. But it is an idea, a theory, cited here as 'fact'. It is not, and one person's idea of what constitutes "White Privilege" probably will not match that of another.
I recall someone pointing to the presence of white people on currency as an example thereof, ignoring the fact that Indians have been gracing our money for over a century. Yet no one seems to speak of "Red Privilege".
But, in todayspeak, we are not supposed to argue with the concept of "White Privilege". "The Left" wants to believe in its existence, and therefore that existence cannot be denied, at the risk of being a "hater" or a "racist".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:13 PM
"..I have no idea what the odds are that any given child will grow up to be President, regardless of race."
Neither do I, but in round numbers since there are about 16 million children born in each 4 year presidential term, it should be around 16 million to 1.
And you're also correct in that the rich have a better chance, the poor had a worse chance, and the blacks had a zero chance (until now.)
As I said originally the "grow up to be President" was folklore, not any kind of prediction.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:14 PM
"I recall clearly that after President Obama's first election, the numerous black Americans that were interviewed saying specifically, "In my wildest dreams, I never believed that I would live to see this day."
I recall many white Americans saying the same thing, but I think it is immaterial to the discussion. Many of those white people, I seem to recall, predicted it. Ergo, they were either lying when they predicted it or they were lying when they said they never believed they would live to see the day.
The point there remains, whether they believed it or not, many said it as was part of the "Land of Opportunity" mantra, which was taught to those of us who attended integrated schools in the 1960s and 1970s.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:20 PM
I know a guy with just a high school and trade school education that grew up to be president of more than one entity. He came from a pretty poor family too.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:20 PM
"...and the blacks had a zero chance (until now.)"
I didn't say that, and it isn't true, since Mr. Obama was able to win. He didn't make that happen, but he was the lucky recipient of the first such honour. It has been possible for some time, and some say Colin Powell (for example) could have beat him to the punch a dozen years ago, had he been willing to run.
But you sell the black race short, putting all their eggs in the Barack Obama basket. He did not make it possible - he was elected because it was possible. A fact you keep ignoring.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:23 PM
"As I said originally the "grow up to be President" was folklore, not any kind of prediction."
No, you didn't. You said: "Previously, black parents could never have honestly told children that "even they could grow up to be President."
Obviously, they could have honestly said that, since one such black child did grow up to be President.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:26 PM
"... we are not supposed to argue with the concept of "White Privilege."
Of course you can. I don't personally believe there is anything racist or hate involved. It's a fact of life, particularly at this point in time.
I'd suggest that it's not that much different than "beauty privilege" or "handsome privilege" if you're trying to make your way to Hollywood.
Consider the "athletic ability privilege" if you are and avid athelete.
Or for that matter, consider "brainiac privilege" if you're applying to MIT or CalTech.
If you don't believe that those kinds of "privilege" have a basis in fact, you may be more na*ve that I am.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:27 PM
"No, you didn't."
"In American tradition or folklore, it has been frequently maintained that white parents have told their sons that "in America, anyone can grow up to be President, you can if you work hard, study, do well in school."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:29 PM
"If you don't believe that those kinds of "privilege" have a basis in fact, you may be more na*ve that I am."
Methinks you are confusing "advantage" with "privilege".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:31 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:06 PM
Common,
As you well know I was referring to your political mindset and the subject we were at odds over.
As is the norm with you... you want to start a line of childish dribble to try and make a point. You are now displaying your ignorance. You cannot insult me.... you're not intelligent enough to insult 90% of the posters on SO.
Your last statement last night said you were done. Lied about that also I see!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:37 PM
Something the Leftist need to get over.... in the strictest sense, we do not have a black president. We have a halfbreed, and that is with the white half of the relationship giving him any legitimacy he has. Try digesting that. Without the white US mother his chances of becoming President would have been zip, zero.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:47 PM
"Methinks you are confusing "advantage" with "privilege".
In my opinion, and in this context, the two words are interchangeable.
"White advantage" is just as applicable.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:55 PM
To recognize the difference, consider a popular commercial for razors.
A row of candidates are seated awaiting an interview for a position with a firm. One man, who has a 'seat advantage' is able to see a row of portraits of corporate leaders, each of whom is hairless. He has a "seat advantage" because he is able to see what is not immediately visible to those seated below the portraits.
He leaves the room and shaves his head, returning seconds later with a shaven pate. He is obviously jockeying for a "bald advantage". The interviewer comes and out and leads him back for his interview. End of commercial.
Now, if you are a racialist, you believe the commercial shows a "hairless privilege", which is to say he was chosen to go back because of his hairlessness, rather than simply because it was his turn (the commercial leads us to believe that, but does not say so in express terms). We are also led to believe that the candidate will be hired because of his hairlessness, which would be indicative of "hairless privilege", an actual extension of something because of his hairlessness, rather than a perceived advantage the candidate sought.
Keep in mind, the candidate was gambling that such an advantage existed. Had he been perceived as mocking their hairlessness, had they suspected that he was actually shaven rather than genetically bald, or had they been seeking a candidate sporting a hairy pate in order to advance their own opportunity in hairy world, his shaven pate may have put him at a disadvantage, rather than an advantage. He took the gamble that shaving his pate would set him apart from the other candidates.
But the main point is that the difference between "advantage" and "privilege" exists. Privilege is extended by the entity in power to the entity who seeks, by virtue of advantage, to receive it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 2:11 PM
"... we are not supposed to argue with the concept of "White Privilege."
Of course you can. I don't personally believe there is anything racist or hate involved. It's a fact of life, particularly at this point in time.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:27 PM
Why would you say such a thing when you claim race relations are at an all-time high?
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 3:13 PM
Something the Leftist need to get over.... in the strictest sense, we do not have a black president. We have a halfbreed, and that is with the white half of the relationship giving him any legitimacy he has. Try digesting that. Without the white US mother his chances of becoming President would have been zip, zero.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 1:47 PM
-- Posted by Robespierre on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 3:55 PM
Spaniard: And your point is.......
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 4:45 PM
"...when you claim race relations are at an all-time high?"
Because "white privilege" is at an all time low, while it does still exist.
Remember, there were times when "white advantage" allowed them to lynch people with little fear of consequences.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 4:58 PM
And "black privilege" is at an all-time high:
===
St. Louis: "A federal jury made the award to Sgt. David Bonenberger (white), who had sued in January 2012. The civil suit alleged that he was passed over for a leadership post at the city Police Academy. It claimed that academy director, Lt. Michael Muxo, told Bonenberger he shouldn't bother to apply for the assistant director opening. Muxo told him that the job was going to a black woman, the suit said."
===
Jon Everhart (white), 65, filed a civil lawsuit against Prince George's County school board based on a history of discrimination. That discrimination led to his termination -- and revocation of his teaching certification -- in June 2010, The Washington Post reports. Everhart had taught English at Largo High School since 2003. He was named Teacher of the Year and received multiple perfect job performance evaluations from prior Largo High School principals.
The harassment started in 2003 when Angelique Simpson-Marcus (black), a gym teacher at the time, reportedly told students, "The only reason a white man teaches in P.G. County is that they can't get a job elsewhere."What do you think?". Simpson-Marcus became Largo High School's principal in 2007, at which point Everhart said she called him "poor white trash," and "white *****.""
===
"A Long Island jury sided with Lt. Christopher Barrella after he claimed that then-Mayor Andrew Hardwick overlooked him to become chief of police so that he could name a Hispanic candidate to the position instead."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 5:35 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 4:58 PM
Once again, nothing but opinions and talking points...
Common, do your conservative kids show up for Thanksgiving anymore?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 5:54 PM
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 5:54 PM
BS...you never make a pertinent point, or discuss anything..you just come on here and slam those you perceive as liberals.
Tell me...why don't you think white privilege exists?
-- Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 6:07 PM
Well, apparently I've ruffled your feathers, so thank you for the compliment....I've said before, I'm not going to write paragraph upon paragraph on every topic. I stand by the Constitution and small government, which is the answer to most of the babble that is laid out on speakout by the house "liberals", or "independents" in your case(wink,wink).
Now to answer your question...Because I don't know what that means, therefore I've never experienced that....Is that clear enough for you, fake teacher?
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 9:01 PM
"Well...they are synonyms"
Not according to my Thesaurus. I explained the difference quite clearly.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 9:21 PM
Posted by Theorist on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 6:06 PM
Theorist: You are an American or you not and you take advantage of all of the freedoms available to us all....then that is the American privilege. It's not that difficult to understand.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 9:29 PM
Strangely enough you're right. "American privilege" is something we all enjoy.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:05 PM
But "white American privilege is even better.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:08 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:08 PM
I'm sure glad I don't carry that guilt around...
-- Posted by BonScott on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:32 PM
White progressive liberals have to keep black folks convinced they are inferior, they have the deck stacked against them opportunity-wise and only with the help of white progressive liberals can they have a fair chance against white privilege. What will they come up with next to keep minorities voting the right way?
We only want to help you.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 10:41 PM
G.H., I know a lot more white people that have fudged to get on disability than blacks. Of course I know less black people than white people. I don't think I can judge either way except when people are encouraged to be dependent a lot of them will be. I do have a friend that stays at another address from his family to collect from the government, He works and supports his family. On the other hand I know of some men that have a mother with children that works so they can collect the dole and live a free life. Takes all kinds. What rubs me is the constant drone of me owing someone something when those someones are as capable as me and as smart as me and a dam bit more healthier than me.
There is a reason for that Do Not Feed The Bears Sign.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:46 AM
A row of candidates are seated awaiting an interview for a position with a firm. One man, who has a 'seat advantage' is able to see a row of portraits of corporate leaders, each of whom is hairless. He has a "seat advantage" because he is able to see what is not immediately visible to those seated below the portraits.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 1, 2015, at 2:11 PM
I agree.
However, I think to complete the parallel, you have to recognize who gives "seat advantage".
In our society, white men are "seated" in the place of advantage more frequently. *That* is privilege. The applicants aren't seating themselves; they are seated by "society".
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 7:36 AM
How can anyone possibly know the way non-white people feel or think unless they are non-white themselves ?
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 7:53 AM
The same way I know how other white people feel or think: by listening to them.
Of course, all people are individuals with different experiences and different beliefs. We all have to recognize that any generalizations we draw will not necessarily apply to each individual in a given group.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 7:56 AM
"I'm sure glad I don't carry that guilt around..."
Why do you think there is "guilt" being carried? Understanding why something exists does not mean you automatically feel "guilty."
It also does not imply condoning "white privilege/advantage" and when possible I work to reduce it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:16 AM
"White progressive liberals have to keep black folks convinced they are inferior..."
I have yet to understand why you think blacks are inferior.
I don't think or believe that they are.
Perhaps you have some reference or quote where someone actually says that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:20 AM
"...how do you know so much about "white privilege" unless you are black. Are you black?"
No Gabby (nice appropriate choice of a name though) I am not.
You don't have to be to understand how and why it exists.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:24 AM
"Not according to my Thesaurus."
The Thesaurus probably does not consider "hungry" and "starving" as synonyms, but when my kids were young and came home saying they were "starving" I knew that they were just "hungry."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:28 AM
In our society, white men are "seated" in the place of advantage more frequently. *That* is privilege. The applicants aren't seating themselves; they are seated by "society". -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 7:36 AM
That borders on a racist tone. Are you discounting that "That" privilege is not based on education, hard work, long hours, risk taking, experience, good parenting, strong ethic? Society doesn't seat leaders - companies hire, fire, interview, review - as well as universities, non-profits, etc. - it's called experience and qualifications. If you have strong evidence that these people are hired based on race alone please provide evidence.
You're painting with a very broad brush here.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:38 AM
If you have strong evidence that these people are hired based on race alone please provide evidence.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:38 AM
I never said anything about people being hired on race alone.
Society does "seat" people. That doesn't discount the work anyone does to give themselves or their family an advantage, it's simply recognizing the facts of the horribly racist history of our nation and work we still must do to make things right.
Another example: For years, it was nearly impossible for minorities to climb the corporate ladder to places of influence. Hence, most corporate leaders were white. Most people know more people of their own race (fyi, I'm not saying anything's wrong with that...it just *is*).
A real life example: My high school was probably about 98% white, which matches the demographics of the community. A kid on my tennis team is now chairman of the board of large company. If there's a position open at the company that fits my qualifications, I am going to have an advantage because I have a connection. Heck, given the right conditions, I might be able to give him a call and let him know I'm interested in working for the company and get a job that was never even open.
Now, he's not looking at me and saying "I'm going to hire Miccheck2" because he's white." He's going to hire me because of my qualifications and the fact that he knows me.
And, yes, I'm painting with a very broad brush. We're discussing a societal phenomenon. I've said over and over individual experiences are going to vary based on many factors.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:05 AM
I would agree there WAS white privilege during slavery. And for a time after the civil war.
I believe it's absolutely untrue today and universities, governments and politicians push that old line because it gets the vote out. There is plenty of "black" and "hispanic" privilege going around and countless lawsuits from white employees over blatant quota-based hiring and promotions that intentionally ignore white candidates. Blatantly.
Let's review the 4 finalists in the search for a new President for Southeast Missouri State. A white woman, a white man, a black man and a latino man. And the winner is.... the latino man. I'm sure they picked the best candidate for the job. The point is the notion that there is some dastardly white privilege in America is a great democrat talking point - and that's all it is.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:15 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 7:36 AM
Mic2: My experience in riding buses is that the first one in line gets the choice of his or her seat....doesn't matter what age, color, religion, or political party he or she is.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:29 AM
that there is some dastardly white privilege in America
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:15 AM
No one is saying it's "dastardly". No one is saying it's an overt action. No one is saying it's something to be guilty about. (Again, I'm painting with a broad brush and I'm almost certain you can find individuals who disagree with my summary, but I'm describing the majority.)
"White privilege" is not another way of describing blatant racism. Racists certainly play a role, but that's only part of it. It is a much larger phenomenon that goes on in our society.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:36 AM
Mic2: My experience in riding buses is that the first one in line gets the choice of his or her seat....doesn't matter what age, color, religion, or political party he or she is.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:29 AM
I don't disagree. However, in our society, white people (again, on the whole) are more likely to know what time the bus arrives, or even that there's a bus at all.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:38 AM
I don't disagree. However, in our society, white people (again, on the whole) are more likely to know what time the bus arrives, or even that there's a bus at all.-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 9:38 AM
Mic2: Maybe the non-whites should put down the free cell phones, turn off the flat screen TVs, get off the coach and find out the bus routes and schedules.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:12 AM
I would be remiss if I didn't interject the cause of today's huge decline in the black economic and family situation.
The liberal US Government and it's socialist policies.
===
Black Genocide?
Black women constitute 13% of the US population yet 36% of the abortions. Huge. One expert claims 1 in 4 black babies are aborted today. 16 million aborted blacks since Roe v. Wade. Years ago over 16,000 aborted babies were discovered in a dumpster in LA. 12-15,000 were estimated to be black.
"After 1964 when President Lyndon B. Johnson pushed through his War on Poverty legislation including public funding of the Pill for the poor, family planning (birth control) was said to be "black genocide" in July 1967 at the first Black Power Conference held in New Jersey."
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:12 AM
Privilege in today's world has much more to do with the station in life one is born into regardless of race or color. We live in a country where there is opportunity to improve on that station in life. It is each individual's option to decide if his station in life is suitable and his responsibility to change it if it doesn't suit.
The myth of "white privilege" or any other color privilege is more of a political position held by a minority than it is a belief. It serves their agenda.
Kind of a modern day "baby kissing" thing at election time.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM
Black crime, murder, incarceration?
A very detailed multi-year study on the destruction of the black family, gangs, crime and incarceration came to the following conclusion: the federal government housing projects were the main cause.
The liberal policy of building housing projects had the following devastating impact on the black family:
-free and subsidized "projects" caused black families in traditional and mixed neighborhoods to flock into concentrated facilities (high rise, all-black, densely populated).
-gangs sprung up and the concentration allowed them much easier control of the population (fear, threats) and recruitment of members much easier
-black children/families were taken out of mix raced neighborhoods where examples of successful families (two parents, good schools, working) were all around them and put into concentrated failing schools and failing families
-the gang family began to replace the nuclear family. High divorce, out-of-wedlock births and parentless kids running free
-school drop out rates climbed quickly at this time leaving many black youth with little education. Pregnancy and abortion climbed dramatically.
-now two entire generations have cycled through this government sponsored and paid-for hell.
-The incarceration rates disproportionately impact men of color: 1 in every 15 African American men and 1 in every 36 Hispanic men are incarcerated in comparison to 1 in every 106 white men.
-According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, one in three black men can expect to go to prison in their lifetime.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:22 AM
Black women constitute 13% of the US population yet 36% of the abortions. Huge. One expert claims 1 in 4 black babies are aborted today. 16 million aborted blacks since Roe v. Wade. Years ago over 16,000 aborted babies were discovered in a dumpster in LA. 12-15,000 were estimated to be black.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:12 AM
And the situations that lead to statistics like these are examples of "white privilege".
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:23 AM
Privilege in today's world has much more to do with the station in life one is born into regardless of race or color.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM
And white people are more likely to be born in a station of life that gives them privilege.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:24 AM
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:22 AM
Nothing posted there disputes "white privilege". If anything, you're supporting the notion.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:27 AM
"I believe it's absolutely untrue today and universities..."
The only thing that statement proves is that you are not a black American.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:29 AM
And the situations that lead to statistics like these are examples of "white privilege". -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:23 AM
No - they're an example of failed government policies to give away free housing, free cell phones, free abortions, free food in trade for destruction of your family and imprisonment of them.
When I was 12 a startling discussion came up at dinner one night - we qualified for federal assistance for food. I asked my mom if we were going to get that and she said - "Absolutely not! Never! We will never accept money from the government. We take care of ourselves" and that was the end of that conversation. Is that "white privilege"? No.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:36 AM
Nothing posted there disputes "white privilege". If anything, you're supporting the notion. -- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:27 AM
Sounds kinda racist to me. Are you insinuating that good decision making, family values and hard work are things only a white person can do?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:37 AM
"And white people are more likely to be born in a station of life that gives them privilege"
And you have the statistics to support this by population of whites vs other races I presume?
Have to run now. Will look for answer later.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:38 AM
The only thing that statement proves is that you are not a black American. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:29 AM
Another senseless posting. Just your opinion with nothing else? Surely you can muster something better than that - sounds like another "It's Bush's fault" response.
Try harder.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:39 AM
Sounds kinda racist to me. Are you insinuating that good decision making, family values and hard work are things only a white person can do?
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:37 AM
Nice try.
You posted a list of realities black (and other minority) Americans are more likely to face than white Americans.
"No - they're an example of failed government policies..."
The reason for the realities is irrelevant to this discussion. You admit white Americans are less likely to face the situations you listed, right? That's privilege.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:46 AM
And you have the statistics to support this by population of whites vs other races I presume?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:38 AM
Dug was kind enough to post a lengthy list already. Read his 10:12 and 10:22 posts.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:50 AM
Is that "white privilege"? No.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:36 AM
Why would you even ask that question?
What do you think I'm saying "white privilege" is?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:51 AM
"White progressive liberals have to keep black folks convinced they are inferior..."
I have yet to understand why you think blacks are inferior.
I don't think or believe that they are.
Perhaps you have some reference or quote where someone actually says that.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:20 AM
I see you are still at it. I won't call you a liar for trying to twist things around.
Perhaps you have some reference or quote where I said that.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:01 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:51 AM
Well, two can play that game...I'm saying it's not!
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:03 AM
Well, two can play that game...I'm saying it's not!
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:03 AM
I think everyone would agree. That's why I'm wondering why Dug would even ask the question.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:07 AM
"Perhaps you have some reference or quote where I said that."
Just above. You're the one that keeps claiming that "others" think blacks are inferior. Nowhere do you deny that you agree. And I won't call you al liar for saying liberals believe blacks should be kept inferior, as in, "White progressive liberals have to keep black folks convinced they are inferior..." So find some proof of that.
I've said all along that blacks are not inferior. Do you agree with me or not? That's a simple yes or no question.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:26 AM
"----- privilege" insert any color, the point is to do the best you can with what you got and don't blame the other colors if you are too lazy to do your best. That's all I've got to say about "privilege" now on to something else.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:08 PM
You admit white Americans are less likely to face the situations you listed, right? That's privilege.-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:46 AM
No - that's the policies of liberal politicians that I'm going to assume you support. Since you support the liberal democrats I'll assume you agree with housing assistance, free food, free cell phones and paid-for abortions.
What you want to call "white privilege" caused by "poor black decisions" is meaningless.
Like saying blacks have the privilege of spending more time in jail than I do. It's not fair that they get higher incarceration rates than I do. It should be even.
Reverse logic doesn't always work miccheck.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:40 PM
Are you insinuating that good decision making, family values and hard work are things only a white person can do?
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:37 AM
Are those the factors that keep people from falling into the situations you listed above?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:52 PM
The liberal US Government and it's socialist policies.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:12 AM
Why have those liberal, socialist policies disproportionately affected black americans as evidenced by your stats listed above?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:54 PM
"Like saying blacks have the privilege of spending more time in jail than I do. It's not fair that they get higher incarceration rates than I do. It should be even."
Try reading that again, this time with a straight face.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:02 PM
No - that's the policies of liberal politicians that I'm going to assume you support.-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:40 PM
You're trying to change the topic from the existence of white privilege to the reason behind it, so can I assume you now agree "white privilege" exists?
I have absolutely no idea what you were trying to say in the rest of your post, so I won't respond. If you'd like to reword perhaps I'd understand better.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:09 PM
"Today's black illegitimacy rate of nearly 75 percent is also entirely new. In 1940, black illegitimacy stood at 14 percent. It had risen to 25 percent by 1965, when Daniel Patrick Moynihan (liberal Democrat) wrote "The Negro Family: The Case for National Action" and was widely condemned as a racist. By 1980, the black illegitimacy rate had more than doubled, to 56 percent, and it has been growing since. Both during slavery and as late as 1920, a teenage girl raising a child without a man present was rare among blacks."
"Ignored in all discussions is the fact that the poverty rate among black married couples has been in single digits since 1994."
"It was fifty years ago when President Lyndon Johnson came up with the brilliant idea of the government giving a check to a woman having a child out of wedlock. But worse, the checks would continue to come as long as no man was to be found in the home.
So Johnson delivered a one-two punch: he told mainly young black girls having babies out of wedlock and not as part of a family was a financially beneficially course of action, and he told young black men they weren't responsible or accountable for the most basic of tasks -- being a father."
===
Great conversation with blacks about blacks on the Diane Rehm show on the ever liberal NPR...
NPR also did a story about accusations that Lyndon Johnson (liberal Democrat) was a cause of black genocide because of the policies that liberal Democrats instituted and caused the demise of the black family, collapse of their economic wealth, education and led to high incarceration rates.
According to blacks.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:13 PM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 11:07 AM
I'm not agreeing with you...You say there is "white privilege" without any concrete proof. I say there is no such thing....Have a great 4th!
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:24 PM
I'm not agreeing with you...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:24 PM
You responded to my question to Dug. I assumed you were saying the "example" Dug gave was not white privilege and I agreed with that.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:30 PM
Everyone are pink on the inside .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:24 PM
Amen to that.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:30 PM
What do you call the black couple who drives around in the brand new BMW? I sure don't have one. Is that "black privilege"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:32 PM
What do you call the black couple who drives around in the brand new BMW? I sure don't have one. Is that "black privilege"?
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:32 PM
Sounds like you have wealth envy.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:38 PM
I think it's liberals that equate wealth with happiness. Seems to be the foundation for all their welfare programs.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:42 PM
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:38 PM
That's laughable El Spicoli. You must have never read ANY of my post on here. That statement couldn't be further from the truth and I'm curious how you came to that conclusion...I think it is absolutely awesome that people achieve great wealth, no matter who you are, and are able to buy high dollar items. It's the American dream and stimulates the economy.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:44 PM
" Is that "black privilege"?
Of course not, it's called having money. There are about 35,000 black millionaires (or about 0.07% of their population.)
The existence of "white privilege/advantage" does not in any way mean all blacks are dirt poor.
Furthermore, as mentioned several times, just because someone denies it's existence, does not mean that they don't have it.
Clearly you can degrade it by acting like an idiot, but normal people just get along with it.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:52 PM
just because someone denies it's existence, does not mean that they don't have it. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:52 PM
Just because you claim it exists doesn't mean that it does. It's a complete fabrication and a great vote getter.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:00 PM
I think it's liberals that equate wealth with happiness. Seems to be the foundation for all their welfare programs.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:42 PM
Welfare programs are making people wealthy?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:00 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 1:52 PM
But you would claim that if I had a BMW, that would be "white privilege"....You have a real problem of talking out of both sides of your mouth. That's a bad trait common.
PS...I'm not going to cry and whine that you called me an idiot. I definitely don't want to be like you progressive "liberals" hypocrites.
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:05 PM
Welfare programs are making people wealthy? -- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:00 PMMore comprehension problems? Do you know the difference between "wealth" and "wealthy"?
Apparently not.
Defintion of 'Wealth'
A measure of the value of all of the assets of worth owned by a person, community, company or country. Wealth is the found by taking the total market value of all the physical and intangible assets of the entity and then subtracting all debts.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:12 PM
"...claim that if I had a BMW, that would be "white privilege"
No again. It only means you can afford one.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:25 PM
You can call me "white privilege", I want a BMW.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:34 PM
Then go buy one like the rest of the BMW owners.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:36 PM
The liberal US Government and it's socialist policies.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:12 AM
Why have those liberal, socialist policies disproportionately affected black americans as evidenced by your stats listed above?
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:54 PM
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:29 PM
Why have those liberal, socialist policies disproportionately affected black americans as evidenced by your stats listed above? -- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 12:54 PM
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:29 PM
For a 2nd time (along with others above). If you need a 3rd time do it yourself.
NPR also did a story about accusations that Lyndon Johnson (liberal Democrat) was a cause of black genocide because of the policies that liberal Democrats instituted and caused the demise of the black family, collapse of their economic wealth, education and led to high incarceration rates.
According to blacks.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:35 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 2:36 PM
Common: Could if Pres. Pinky wasn't taxing me to death.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:35 PM
Would someone please explain to me why the blacks have the privilege of being the preferred minority ?
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:16 PM
I don't think "preferred minority" is a good term, but I think I know where you're coming from.
I think a lot it has to do with visibility. Whereas your ancestors were literally pushed out of the way, black have always "lived among us" so to speak. As such, not only was mainstream society not able to push them "out of mind", but it also was overtly discriminatory toward them.
That also led to a very public equality movement by blacks.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 4:45 PM
According to blacks.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:35 PM
That's not what I asked you.
I asked you:
"Why have those liberal, socialist policies disproportionately affected black americans as evidenced by your stats listed above?"
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:42 PM
Common: Could if Pres. Pinky wasn't taxing me to death.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 3:35 PM
He's not, unless you're in top tax bracket, which I would find hard to believe...
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:44 PM
I have one vote just like you have one vote, Dug. -- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:48 PM
That's my answer. You'll have to ask someone else if you want an answer you like.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM
I have one vote just like you have one vote, Dug. -- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:48 PM
That's my answer. You'll have to ask someone else if you want an answer you like.
-- Posted by Dug on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:53 PM
That's not my question. And you gave someone else's answer, assuming you got the question right.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:55 PM
Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 5:44 PM
Spaniard: Easy for you to say. I'm doing alright, helping to support the blood sucking freeloaders like yourself.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:09 PM
Spaniard: Easy for you to say. I'm doing alright, helping to support the blood sucking freeloaders like yourself.
-- Posted by semo471 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:09 PM
Probably the other way around. You are probably one these old grumpy senior citizens taking social security and medicare handouts. You're welcome.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 6:13 PM
The reason for the realities is irrelevant to this discussion. You admit white Americans are less likely to face the situations you listed, right? That's privilege.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:46 AM
Privilege? No it's not. Personal responsibility and good decision making? Yes.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:22 PM
Read all of today's posts. Not buying in on the "white privilege" BS. It is still nothing more than a myth promoted by the "Political Correctness" crowd to further a political agenda.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 8:47 PM
So, according to our house "liberals", I should be a starting two guard in the NBA, or at least on a team...😊
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 2, 2015, at 10:14 PM
"...a starting two guard in the NBA..."
Far be it for me to suggest that anyone on SO is being intentionally dense, although there are exceptions.
But no Mr. BS, it is highly unlikely that you can become an NBA point guard. It is after all, merely "white privilege/advantage" not "white magic."
How you make your way in the world (even the NBA) has everything to do how hard you work, personal responsibility, good decision making, intelligence, etc. etc. "White privilege/advantage" has little to do with skills and even talent, it comes into play most often when there are marginal differences in contending outcomes.
The example above makes that point. The "black soldiers" were about 25% less likely to get the "free ride" than the "white soldiers." That's "white privilege/advantage."
Other examples abound...
When the jewelry store security guard follows the black man around, but not the white kid. That's "white privilege/advantage."
When equally qualified individuals apply for a job, the non-photo resume of John gets him hired over DeShaunjon. That's "white privilege/advantage."
When the white driver passes freely through Ladue, and the black driver gets pulled over by police for supposed "suspicious activity." That's "white privilege/advantage."
When the white father tells his son that he must respect and obey police or he may get arrested, and the black father tells his son that he must respect and obey police or he may get shot. That's "white privilege/advantage."
By now, you really should be able to get the point and even be able to think of other examples by yourself. As I said before, it's not being condoned, it is not a reason to be consumed with "guilt," the detrimental effects are slowly being lessened, and it was definitely worse in the past.
Remember, "white privilege/advantage" used to allow lynching with impunity.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:48 AM
And the last lynching was when?
I thought this nonsense was about the here and now.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:05 AM
BonScott,
When the looney leftists proclaim something to be fact,you may as well argue with a stump. The stump will not invent scenarios out of thin air and will have a more open mind.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:29 AM
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:44 AM
Schooling for what, fake teacher?....
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 9:15 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:48 AM
I said a two guard common, not a point guard. Do you know the difference?...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 9:17 AM
Yes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 9:20 AM
Good....But I could shoot the rock back in the day. You still don't think my "white privilege" will get me on a team?😊
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 9:25 AM
Absolutely not. It has nothing to do with you trying to make baskets.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:34 AM
Well crap!...And this whole time I thought I had "white privilege"...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:41 AM
You do. Seems you just don't understand it at all.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:47 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:47 AM
I find it fascinating that you know so much about me...hmmm?
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:55 AM
Actually I know virtually nothing about about you (and frankly...) except for the BS part, and that you are claiming to be ignorant of what "white privilege/advantage" is.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 12:21 PM
"-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:44 AM --"
My Thesaurus lists "appanage (apanage), boon, concession, honor".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 3:16 PM
"When the jewelry store security guard follows the black man around, but not the white kid. That's "white privilege/advantage."
No. It is "profiling". Or it could be "experience".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 3:19 PM
"When equally qualified individuals apply for a job, the non-photo resume of John gets him hired over DeShaunjon. That's "white privilege/advantage."
Why do you assume John to be a white guy?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 3:21 PM
"When the jewelry store security guard follows the black man around, but not the white kid. That's "white privilege/advantage."
No. It is "profiling". Or it could be "experience".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 3:19 PM
And the profiling generally favors whites. That's why it's an example of white privilege.
"When equally qualified individuals apply for a job, the non-photo resume of John gets him hired over DeShaunjon. That's "white privilege/advantage."
Why do you assume John to be a white guy?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 3:21 PM
It doesn't matter. The reason he's more likely to get the call is the call is because he doesn't have a stereotypical black name.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 4:09 PM
He may not be, but is more likely that DeShaunjon is not, and therefore a likely reason for the hiring decision.
Profiling or experience, the white kid has the unearned benefit of "white privilege/advantage."
Do you believe that "white privilege/advantage" is an aspect of societal relationships, or do you deny it exists?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 4:37 PM
I am inclined to say it does not exist as you think it, nor is it an "unfair" thing. I referred earlier to your examples as "majority advantage", and I stick by that.
Why do you think this is some sort of injustice?
Why, for example, do black parents name their children "black-sounding names", if they know it will put them at a disadvantage? German-Americans changed their names after World War I to avoid such disadvantage. "Black-sounding names" are a relatively construct.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 4:55 PM
I am inclined to say it does not exist as you think it, nor is it an "unfair" thing. I referred earlier to your examples as "majority advantage", and I stick by that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 4:55 PM
I think it's more likely that it does not exist in the way *you* think.
Yes, majority is some of the reason for it's existence. That doesn't make it any less real.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 5:15 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 12:21 PM
I'm glad to hear you like the band...
And I think I've figured it out..."White privilege" and "black privilege" and "brown privilege" and "red privilege" are all the same...Sounds good to me.
-- Posted by BonScott on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 6:13 PM
BonScott, Nothing changes. The great white sage and his followers are determined to keep up the rhetoric to convince black people the deck is stacked against them. Keeping the race thing stirred is all they've got.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 6:48 PM
Why is your name Shapley??
-- Posted by Theorist on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 5:06 PM
If you had been paying attention over the years you would know there is something called tradition in many families.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 6:51 PM
"...do not ignore facts, you know what people will call you then..."
Do not ignore context. You know what people will call you then...
I am not sure what part of " I am inclined to say" or "as you think it", but methinks you will call me whatever you want, regardless of facts.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:18 PM
"Why can't anyone name their child without risking prejudice..."
Because humans are human. If you want to fit in society, you bend yourself to its norms. It has only been that way for several millenia. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
"why does anyone have to fit "the profile" of a white name...."
They don't. My name is an example. But, if you give your child an unpronouncable name, you put them at a disadvantage. It is not necessarily a "black" thing. Was the same experiment conducted with Polish names, Swedish names, or Russian names? Those are white names, but it is entirely possible that John will be given preference over "Vladimir", "Bjork", or "Johann". You cannot legislate personal preference.
"methinks you just proved white privilege does exist!!"
Methinks, more likely, that I showed that personal prejudices exist
, which ought to surprise no one. Rebranding things under a new, clinical name and trying to sell it as a societal ill is also nothing new, but that doesn't make the rebrander's conclusions valid.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:30 PM
When the jewelry store security guard follows the black man around, but not the white kid. That's "white privilege/advantage."
When equally qualified individuals apply for a job, the non-photo resume of John gets him hired over DeShaunjon. That's "white privilege/advantage."
When the white driver passes freely through Ladue, and the black driver gets pulled over by police for supposed "suspicious activity." That's "white privilege/advantage."
When the white father tells his son that he must respect and obey police or he may get arrested, and the black father tells his son that he must respect and obey police or he may get shot. That's "white privilege/advantage."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:48 AM
All of these statements are examples of someone using commonsense and making wise decisions.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:34 PM
If you want to name your child "L'shw'n", you do that child a disservice. If young L'shw'n grows up to be a credit to society, he does future L'shw'n's a service and reduces the stigma. If he grows up to be a detriment to society, he does future "L'shw'n's a disservice.
Being named Shapley means I owe it to past and future Shapley's an obligation to keep the name respectable. I understand that obligation, even though it was assigned to me at birth, and I had no say in the matter. It is an obligation I have striven to uphold.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:37 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 7:44 PM
According to Sigmund Freud, it is society's goal to make life better for their offspring. As such, they strive to create a society in which their offspring can survive and thrive. The result is that society's construct produces within it advantages for those who strive to fit in, and disadvantages for those who struggle to be 'counter-culture'.
This really ought to surprise no one. It is neither unjust nor immoral. It is a part of society's own survival mechanism: a society does not progress by encouraging its undoing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:03 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:03 PM
My friend, that was probably the best summary of white privilege in this thread. Thank you.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:27 PM
I saw a cartoon depicting the end of the world where a large crowd was competing for position to get the best cell phone photo.
The concept of white privilege as argued by liberals reminded me of that.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 8:40 PM
"I am inclined to say it does not exist as you think it..."
So it seems that you're in the denial camp. The way I see it existing is it being a situation where people tend to favor "their own" and since whites are in the majority it becomes by default "white advantage/privilege."
As for it being "unfair," or "fair," that would suggest that the two drivers, one black and one white, driving the same year and model vehicles, both operating safely fully within the law, going through Ladue, and only one gets stopped for supposed "suspicious activity." And you suggest that it's not an "unfair thing" that the black driver gets pulled over for no valid reason, except his skin color. There might even be violations of the Constitution. You may want to reconsider before claiming that this never happens.
Why do you think that this is not an injustice?
And you also suggest that white "privilege/advantage" is the fault of the "victim" by choice of names. That's questionable to say the least and whether it's wise or not to pick non-traditional names is up to the parents. Clearly no matter what your name is, the interviewer will recognize color.
With regard to Germans changing names during WW I, there may have been some, most did not. Look in the Cape phonebook, I'd say there are German names on each page. General Eisenhower could have changed his name to "Smith" but he didn't.
Time in the military exposes people to the minimal level of "white privilege/advantage" that exists there, and I'm sure the same was true in the Navy. But it has not disappeared entirely. Consider though what happened and how it returned when GI's went off base to the local town.
Making life better for one's offspring is fine and should be everyone's goal. Trying to push your offspring forward by denying opportunities for someone else's child is not quite Sigmund had in mind.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 9:40 PM
Call me what you want, I can't make any sense of that.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:15 PM
"My friend, that was probably the best summary of white privilege in this thread. Thank you."
You are a racialist, so you see it as such. The truth is more complex. It is about conformity, those who conform with societal dictates, white, black, or otherwise, are at an advantage. Those who "buck the trend", find themselves less so. The bottom line is, if you accept society's dictates, you are at the advantage. If you demand that society accept yours, you should not be surprised to find that society is inclined not to do so.
Since you cannot see beyond the racial aspect, you believe in "white privilege". That is your failing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:19 PM
None of these "white privilege" hawkers ever heard the term or gave it any thought until told to by the media. Kinda like The Dukes of Hazzard, been on TV for 36yrs and no one considered the show racist until last week when the media demanded that we all look at the Dukes as racist. The lapdogs complied.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 6:32 AM
The truth is more complex. It is about conformity, those who conform with societal dictates, white, black, or otherwise, are at an advantage. Those who "buck the trend", find themselves less so. The bottom line is, if you accept society's dictates, you are at the advantage. If you demand that society accept yours, you should not be surprised to find that society is inclined not to do so.
Since you cannot see beyond the racial aspect, you believe in "white privilege". That is your failing.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 3, 2015, at 10:19 PM
You misunderstand. The phenomenon you are describing is part of what we're talking about when we discuss "white privilege".
That's why I said earlier I don't think white privilege exists as YOU think is does. You are arguing against a strawman version of white privilege so you can continue to deny its existence.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:08 AM
We have had "white" counter-cultural movements throughout history, such as the Beatniks and the Hippies. There used tobe signs in windows "Help Wanted: Hippies need not apply".
The Hippies, similarly, disadvantaged their children by giving them "Hippie" names. If you named your child 'Suncatcher' or 'Riverwalker' or such, you put them at a disadvantage. I knew one such "Hippie" offspring who went so far as to have his name changed.
Hollywood tends to promote these counter-cultures. They sometimes start out by mocking them but, being Hollywood, they tend to adopt them and promote them, "mainstreaming" them, if you will.
If they survive long enough, society finds a niche for them, or they find a niche in society, however you want to view it. By and large, they remain on fringes, though some of their culture will work itself into the societal fabric.
A friend of mine, who adopted the "Hippie" cultural, told his father he had to take time out to "search for himself" was told to not be surprised if he didn't find himself digging ditches. Similarly, a black friend who adopted his "cultural identity" in oreder to "express who I am" was told by his father to not be surprised when employers told him to "be who you are someplace else". Their fathers understood what many today do not: being a part of society imposes demands on its members to uphold the dignity and tradition which prior generations have woven into the societal fabric, at the cost of self-expression.
Society is slow to adopt new patterns. When efforts are made to force new patterns upon them, society often reacts, sometimes viciously, at the efforts to rend its fabric. This is as it should be: thousands of years of learning the rules of societal behaviour ought not be undone on a whim. If you want to pioneer a new weave, you should not be surprised to find yourself on he outs. Pioneers should understand that they may never see the promised land they set out to build. As Freud notes, they are building for their progeny, not for themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:11 AM
"That's why I said earlier I don't think white privilege exists as YOU think is does. You are arguing against a strawman version of white privilege so you can continue to deny its existence."
And I say you are a racialist, making it a racial issue when it is really not about race. You believe it exists because you have been told it exists, and want to believe it exists. Wasn't it you who said having white people on curtency was an example thereof?
I have given my reasons for believing it to mischaracterized as a racial issue. You hzve given nothing concrete to support it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:18 AM
"That's why I said earlier I don't think white privilege exists as YOU think is does. You are arguing against a strawman version of white privilege so you can continue to deny its existence."
And I say you are a racialist, making it a racial issue when it is really not about race. You believe it exists because you have been told it exists, and want to believe it exists. Wasn't it you who said having white people on curtency was an example thereof?
I have given my reasons for believing it to mischaracterized as a racial issue. You hzve given nothing concrete to support it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:19 AM
I don't deny its existence, I deny it is a racial construct.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:21 AM
Society is slow to adopt new patterns. When efforts are made to force new patterns upon them, society often reacts, sometimes viciously, at the efforts to rend its fabric. This is as it should be: thousands of years of learning the rules of societal behaviour ought not be undone on a whim. If you want to pioneer a new weave, you should not be surprised to find yourself on he outs. Pioneers should understand that they may never see the promised land they set out to build. As Freud notes, they are building for their progeny, not for themselves.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:11 AM
Again, I don't disagree. However, you must remember that for almost 200 years, our society was built upon the fact that white people were superior.
As you point out, it's hard for society to change, so even though we now, as a society, do not hold that view, the effect of that history will take time to change.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:22 AM
I don't deny its existence, I deny it is a racial construct.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:21 AM
Please further explain "racial construct"
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:26 AM
Our society was built on the fact.........
Common will now state that he doesn't know why you think blacks are inferior?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:37 AM
"However, you must remember that for almost 200 years, our society was built upon the fact that white people were superior."
Only a portion of society held that view. Remember that slavery was not ended in America by slaves rising up and throwing off their shackles, but by free people, mostly white people, demanding its end. Civil Rights laws, similarly, were passed by white majorities. Such laws were largely passed to change things in those parts of the nation where segregation was an issue. They were not needed in many parts of the country.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:50 AM
"Please further explain "racial construct"
I have provided enough. I suspect you are just trying to goad me into something else for which you can attack mY character. I will not play that game again. You should be able to discern my meaning from prior posts.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:53 AM
Our society was built on the fact.........
Common will now state that he doesn't know why you think blacks are inferior?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:37 AM
And that's a fair question; I used a very poor choice of words.
I should have said "notion" instead of fact.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:57 AM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:50 AM
Regardless, the notion was prevalent even where it was less outwardly obvious.
I have provided enough. I suspect you are just trying to goad me into something else for which you can attack mY character. I will not play that game again. You should be able to discern my meaning from prior posts.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:53 AM
OK. From what I can discern, we completely agree about white privilege, but for some reason you feel you are supposed to disagree that it exists so you argue against it.
By the way, last evening you said quite enough for me to point out your character flaws had that been what I desired.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 8:08 AM
Certain people have advantages over others in life and it will remain so. The Leftists may huff and puff and try to make it a racial issue.... but that is one institution they will not blow down. There are people of all races who have an advantage over others and it will not change. But it makes a fine political issue. Create some more division or divide and conquer..... say it how you wish.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 8:10 AM
"By the way, last evening you said quite enough for me to point out your character flaws had that been what I desired."
She is back to attack mode. Just another day in Paradise!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 8:15 AM
Is advantage like being able to throw rocks at police and loot stores without consequence?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 8:52 AM
"...those who conform with societal dictates, white, black, or otherwise, are at an advantage. Those who "buck the trend", find themselves less so."
Getting back to this premise, to me it can be phrased as "societal conformity advantage/privilege" and I don't dispute its existence nor its validity. And as you said, it applies to society in general, not white black or otherwise, so it's then independent of "white privilege/advantage," and does not eliminate it.
Back in the late 1700's, societal dictates called for every colonist to be a loyal subject of King George III. Those determined to "buck the trend" were the "Founding Fathers," and we know how that went.
In the early 1800's societal dictates included acceptance of slavery as the norm and as open-ended. The groups deciding to "buck the trend" were the slaves, abolitionists and eventually the northern states. Even when the south went to war to keep slavery, they failed.
Back in the early 1900's, societal dictates proclaimed "man was not meant to fly." The Wright Brothers were the ones to "buck the trend."
There are innumerable other examples, but the applicable point is that one of the societal dictates of the American past was that of white supremacy. Gratefully, that concept has been for the most part, vanquished from society, with the exception of lingering "white privilege/advantage."
Of the examples have been presented above and none have been effectively refuted with evidence. Blanket denial does not serve as substantiation. Another viewpoint is from the black side. In discussions and readings it is clear to me that they are painfully aware of its presence. Another example involves black kids in schools, who quickly learn that white kids are preferred. Stories of black children vainly trying to "wash the black off," while maybe anecdotal, are totally plausible.
This is not a matter of being "racist" or demanding anyone feel "guilty." Right now it's a fact of life in our society, and should be recognized and resolved instead of being ignored, denied and sustained.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 8:53 AM
why should anyone have to change their heritage to "white" names to avoid a disadvantage??? Why???? Because WHITE people have an ADVANTAGE(PRIVILEGE)!!!! -- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 8:49 AM
I'm sure the new president of SEMO would disagree with you. Dr. Carlos Vargas-Aburto.
Still want to stand by that statement? How did Vargas-Aburto's name help him? Hinder him?
Completely manufactured.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 9:19 AM
"Black sounding names"...why should anyone have to change their heritage to "white" names to avoid a disadvantage???"
As my link notes, it is a fabricated heritage, by and large. Generally coming about in the 1950s and 1960s, as a counter-culture movement stemming from the Civil Rights movement.
The more recent construct, using punctuation marks in lieu of letters, has no historical component, as far as I can tell. It is counter-cultural and, as my prior posts explain, I believe it will encounter societal opposition,not because it is a "black" construct but because it is a counter-cultural one.
"From what I can discern, we completely agree about white privilege,.."
As long as you continue to enter racialism into it, by calling it "White Privilege", we don't agree.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 9:57 AM
The hyphenated last names are, to the best of my knowledge, more of a feminist construct than a racial one. Women, not wanting to surrender their identities after marriage, or to children born out of wedlock, hyphenated the maiden and spousal names, or the matarnal and paternal names to form them.
They, too, are counter-cultural.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 10:03 AM
As long as you continue to enter racialism into it, by calling it "White Privilege", we don't agree.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 9:57 AM
That makes no sense.
We agree, whether you like the name of the phenomenon or not.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 10:17 AM
All this boils down to, is being in the right place at the right time and knowing the right people...Mickey, you said it yourself when you used your old tennis teammate as an example. It happens all the time no matter the COLOR of ones skin...."Liberals" like to use fancy terms like "white privilege" to push a political agenda, kind of like the "war on poverty". It's rather sick and sad if you ask me....
God bless America and have a safe 4th of July everyone!!🍻
-- Posted by BonScott on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 10:31 AM
Please do not call me Mickey.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 10:37 AM
Funny how all these people who claim white advantage never gave it a thought until the media recently brought it up as a way to create more stories. The bandwagon is full.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 3:50 PM
"Why, for example, do black parents name their children "black-sounding names", if they know it will put them at a disadvantage?"
"As long as you continue to enter racialism into it, by calling it "White Privilege", we don't agree."
It would seem that SH scored an "own goal."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 4:35 PM
American blacks created their own disadvantages through the decisions and actions they have made and taken over the past 50-60 yrs.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 7:30 PM
Certain people have advantages over others in life and it will remain so. The Leftists may huff and puff and try to make it a racial issue.... but that is one institution they will not blow down. There are people of all races who have an advantage over others and it will not change. But it makes a fine political issue. Create some more division or divide and conquer..... say it how you wish.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 9:23 PM
Wheels, Give them time and they will blow it down. No one of logic can understand, It may be that they are so brainwashed so that they believe the socialist mantra of everyone deserves everything and the way to accomplish that is to take from those that have earned. They want to tear down capitalism not knowing that capitalism has uplifted poor people for centuries.
Enough pressure and propaganda and even the Pope bends.
I figure in a few years the American people will accept and support a hero of the poor. Our federal education system will have erased all knowledge of failed socialist failures and we will have a Hugo Chavez in charge. [many supporters will truly believe they are the righteous]
One of the wealthiest countries on earth that can't provide for ourselves, we will be if we continue the path of liberal progressive Forward thinking.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 10:19 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 10:19 PM
Old John
I fear you are correct. Hugo Chavez was admired by our current wannabe dictator. Look where we are going at present with Cuba. I'm anxious to see what Obama gave away to cozy up to that communist dictatorship.
More or less waiting for the gotcha to getcha!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 11:02 PM
"...socialist mantra of everyone deserves everything..."
So how does that work, exactly? Does each and every American deserve to get for free, a new car annually, or a new house, or an unlimited Walmart gift card, etc.?
Sounds impractical and unlikely, not to mention impossible, but then again, that's conservative lack of logic.
Could it be possible that possible that Mr. OJ is a covert liberal operative with mission of planting absurd claims that make conservatives look silly?
Hopefully his cover is not blown. He can always regain credibility with conservatives by repeating some of his previous fables, like "liberals think all blacks are inferior." That too is a lie, but many conservatives will believe anything.
Don't get all upset, just SO humor.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 7:34 AM
Nothing wrong with your humor except that you're not funny.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 7:49 AM
I figure that I can repeat over and over that "White Privilege" is BS as often as Common, Theorist and Mickey chant that it exists.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:13 AM
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:13 AM
Why didn't you mention Shapley and Dug who have also admitted white privilege exists?
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:25 AM
"Your children's children will live under Communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won't accept Communism outright; but we'll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won't have to fight you; WE'LL SO WEAKEN YOUR ECONOMY, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands."
Nikita Khrushchev - 1959
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:33 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:25 AM
Because their admitting it was only a figment of your imagination.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:36 AM
I'm anxious to see what Obama gave away to cozy up to that communist dictatorship. -- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 4, 2015, at 11:02 PM
No different than what he's giving to ISIS - more recruits from Guantanamo prison while denying our allies simply weapons to fight ISIS on their own.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:44 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:25 AM
Because their admitting it was only a figment of your imagination.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:36 AM
Not at all. Dug gave an entire list of examples, over two posts, a couple of days ago.
Shapley thinks the name should be called "majority privilege", but doesn't deny its existence.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:05 AM
Nikita Khrushchev - 1959
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:33 AM
Here we are a full generation later than Khrushchev's prediction and we still are nowhere close to communism. I think it's safe to say Nikita was no soothsayer.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:09 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:05 AM
Mic2: I won't call you Mickey but I do disagree with the new buzz word of the Left Wing - "White Privilege". Guess it means because a person is white that he/she has an advantages or benefits that the other races don't have. Guess "Black Privilege" "Red Privilege" "Brown Privilege" "Yellow Privilege" has also advantages or benefits that the white race doesn't have. Once again the Liberal Left Wing along with Pres. Pinky has divided the country into separating the races and not uniting the races.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:18 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:05 AM
Mic2: I won't call you Mickey but I do disagree with the new buzz word of the Left Wing - "White Privilege". Guess it means because a person is white that he/she has an advantages or benefits that the other races don't have. Guess "Black Privilege" "Red Privilege" "Brown Privilege" "Yellow Privilege" has also advantages or benefits that the white race doesn't have.
-- Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:18 AM
Couple things:
1. Yes, every culture and race has certain advantages and benefits. White privilege is the overwhelming advantage white people have given the history of our country.
2. White privilege is not a new buzzword or concept. Just because you've not heard of it before doesn't make it new.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:45 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:45 AM
Mic2: Your #1 doesn't make sense - whites gave the country our history????? Your #2: Maybe I'm not as hip as the Liberals on here with all the sayings.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:57 AM
"Here we are a full generation later than Khrushchev's prediction and we still are nowhere close to communism. I think it's safe to say Nikita was no soothsayer."
I would say, you are no judge of where the country has gone since 1959. Nowhere did Khrushchev set a timetable on it happening that I am aware of. Small doses/bites at a time. That is the way of the Leftists.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 10:27 AM
"Here we are a full generation later than Khrushchev's prediction and we still are nowhere close to communism. I think it's safe to say Nikita was no soothsayer."
I would say, you are no judge of where the country has gone since 1959. Nowhere did Khrushchev set a timetable on it happening that I am aware of. Small doses/bites at a time. That is the way of the Leftists.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 10:27 AM
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:45 AM
Mic2: Your #1 doesn't make sense - whites gave the country our history????? Your #2: Maybe I'm not as hip as the Liberals on here with all the sayings.
-- Posted by semo471 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:57 AM
Replace "given" with because and it might be clearer. As for #2, it doesn't hurt anyone of us to be more aware.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 11:05 AM
I would say, you are no judge of where the country has gone since 1959. Nowhere did Khrushchev set a timetable on it happening that I am aware of. Small doses/bites at a time. That is the way of the Leftists.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 10:27 AM
I have as much ability to judge as anyone. Sure, I wasn't alive in 1959, but unlike certain people here, I welcome the opportunity to learn new things which helps when it comes to history.
As for the timeline, Khrushchev said "your children's children". Assuming he was addressing a young adult at the time, their children's children are adults and may even have adult children.
As for "leftists", let's recall who is defending Khrushchev's words and who is pointing out how mistaken he was.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 11:10 AM
The liberal democrats don't believe in white privilege. That's why a woman in Washington declared she was black when, in fact she was white, to get a good job.
Or democrat Senator Warren of Massachusetts claimed she was "Native American" so she could get privileges that, as a white, she couldn't get.
Or the other famous democrat Ward Churchill who also claimed to be "Native American" so he could land a professorship in Colorado since, as a white, he could not have done so.
Appears many democrats don't believe in white privilege either so they claim false lineage to non-whites to get jobs, money, privilege and opportunities that whites are denied.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 12:12 PM
Posted by Theorist on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 12:24 PM
Theorist: #1: You are correct The People were here long before any other race was. #2: I'll match my hips to yours anyday and see who is hippy ;-)
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 12:59 PM
"As for the timeline, Khrushchev said "your children's children".
Why even go that far?
Khrushchev's own son was naturalized as a US citizen in 1991. Guess the SO conservatives believe Khrushchev much more than his own son did.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 2:58 PM
Khrushchev's own son was naturalized as a US citizen in 1991. Guess the SO conservatives believe Khrushchev much more than his own son did. -- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 2:58 PM
And the Communist Barack Obama, SR. had a son who was a US Citizen - Barack Obama, Jr.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 4:53 PM
So far as your children's children. That would be grandchildren and is more of a figure of speech than a statement of absolutes. He spoke to a broad number of people from my grandparents who were still alive to those like my daughter who was born in 1959. I have grandchildren ranging in age from 12 to 24. At the speed Socialism is taking hold, there is more than adequate time for them to be forced into living under Communism.
Very cute trying to deny Socialism is being thrust upon us a dose at a time and making the statement from Khrushchev appear to have been irrelevant from a time line standpoint.
The fact that you were not alive has no bearing on the relevance of the prediction. And it does date you and your lack of real life experience in that area.
So far as Conservatives embracing Socialism, that is a laugh. Conservatives I know despise Socialism.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 8:41 PM
Todays Liberals = tomorrows Socialists.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:26 PM
I wonder if poor common knows that the mayor of New York City is a communist?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:49 PM
Has common always defended communist dictators?
-- Posted by Old John on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 9:57 PM
Perhaps one the Leftist experts on here can explain to the rest of us inferior thinkers on Speak Out and the Forums how the scenario described on the link below cannot happen to the USA. Spending our grandchildren's money is dangerous.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 5, 2015, at 11:52 PM
"As long as you continue to enter racialism into it, by calling it "White Privilege", we don't agree."
"It would seem that SH scored an "own goal."
I wasn't the one who entered the concept of "black-sounding names", I merely responded to it.
Perhaps it couldbe called "Black disadvantage", though I am not entirely comfortable with that. Some will argue they are the same thing, but that requires two erroneous assumption:
First, that it is all black and white, ignoring, for example, "Yellow Advantage/Disadvantage" or "Brown Advantage/Disadvantage".
Second, it implies that none of it is self-imposed, which is my problem with the original term.
"Counter-cultural disadvantage" probably makes more sense.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 6:51 AM
In any US-Greece comparison the differences vastly outweigh and similarities. Greek debt-GDP ratio of 177%, retirement for many at 40-45 years, 25% unemployment, having allowed pensions to be inherited by unmarried daughters, etc. etc.
The solution for the US has been there all along. Compromise on adoption of Simpson-Bowles will reduce spending, stabilize SS/Medicare, and revise tax code to closing loopholes to boost revenue.
What a concept, reduce debt by spending less and earning more.
All that's needed is for democrats and republicans in Congress to agree reduce the federal spending, adjust SS/Medicare with marginal changes in rates, eligibility and payout, and reform the tax code to increase revenue which would be used only for deficit reduction.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:41 AM
"...that none of it is self-imposed..."
That would have to mean that the black gentleman driving legally through Ladue, is somehow causing his being stopped for no valid reason. Perhaps it is because of his skin color, which I suggest is not self-imposed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:46 AM
In any US-Greece comparison the differences vastly outweigh and similarities. Greek debt-GDP ratio of 177%, retirement for many at 40-45 years, 25% unemployment, having allowed pensions to be inherited by unmarried daughters, etc. etc.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:41 AM
The public debt as a % of GDP was around 40% when Obama took office. It's above 70% now and headed to 80%. Keep your head in the sand.
The REAL (U6) unemployment rate is around 11%.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:04 AM
"It's above 70% now and headed to 80%."
So why aren't the republicans in charge of the House and Senate doing something about it?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:09 AM
So why aren't the republicans in charge of the House and Senate doing something about it? -- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:09 AM
Because they finally got control this past November from your party. They did force the sequestration which Obama was "for" before he was "against" it.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:12 AM
"That would have to mean that the black gentleman driving legally through Ladue, is somehow causing his being stopped for no valid reason. Perhaps it is because of his skin color, which I suggest is not self-imposed."
No. It would mean not blaming society because you can't name your child J'mnsh'a and expect society to not take notice. I means not wearing your pants down around your knees while expecting to society to not question your ability to function normally. It would mean speaking the English instead of "Black English". It would mean staying in school and taking full advantage of the free education society provides.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:00 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:41 AM
That is your solution? SSDD! All talk no action..... blame the oposition party.
What this country really needs is leadership.... we have little. The people have found where the money is, or so they think. They will continue to vote themselves entitlements leaving the bill for their children and grandchildren to pay.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:07 AM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:41 AM
That is your solution? SSDD! All talk no action..... blame the oposition party.
What this country really needs is leadership.... we have little. The people have found where the money is, or so they think. They will continue to vote themselves entitlements leaving the bill for their children and grandchildren to pay.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:07 AM
As I see it, "the Left" is still grappling for reasons to explain the failure of fifty years of Civil Rights "progress" and Affirmative Action to elevate the minorities they claim to be helping.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:15 AM
Add to SH'S description, wearing your cap 90 degrees from that which it was designed to be worn and you have an individual most employers will not give a second look and he can be whatever color of the rainbow there is.
You may call it whatever kind of advantage or disadvantage you like. I would call it a self inflicted problem.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:33 AM
"Hmmmm....someone else has a little anger built up."
Not really. Just observing and reporting.
"Now, for one who is against more government in private lives...you sure seem to being judging and ruling on others lives."
Who have I proposed to judge or rule? I have stated what ought to be obvious: counter-cultural movements tend to put one on the "outs" with the culture you try to counter.
"It does not matter what the name, the style of clothing, or the slang used..."
Yes, it does. To deny is this is to be horribly na*ve. Why do you think businesses have dress codes? Why do you think schools have dress codes? Why do you think we put, or used to put, so much emphasis on the proper use of English in schools?
You said yourself that "black-sounding names" are less likely to be considered for employment. How, then, can you claim it does not matter.
"...your bias really, really just presented itself."
No, your naivety really, really, just presented itself. Also your inability to read what you, yourself, noted.
"Some deep thinking may be in order..."
This is why it is frustrating to discuss matters such as this with "the Left". They don't want to discuss the issue except on their terms. They don't want to do any "deep thinking", because they don't want to deal with hard truths. Point out the obvious, and you are "hater" or a "racist" or "biased".
The fact of the matter is, if two people of equal qualifications apply for a job, one well-groomed, with a clean shirt and slacks, and another in baggy pants worn around their knees, with a baggy sweatshirt, you can argue about "cultural identity" all you want but you know which one is most likely to get the job.
If your job is to address the public, the public generally expects you to address them in clean English. Speaking "Black English" is a detriment.
In every state in the union, Asians and Whites are more likely to complete high school than are Blacks. That can't be denied, and it can't be blamed on any "white privilege" which encourages such non-completion.
A little deep thinking on your part might be in order to explain why this is. You can't blame "white privilege". And you can't blame the cost of schooling.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:35 AM
"You want others to use "white sounding" names...clothes that meet your uniform standard...and English that is perhaps a bit archaic...in order to "better" themselves."
Nowhere have I suggested "white sounding" names. Quite the contrary, I stated quite clearly that you are free to name a child anything you want, but you have to understand that counter-cultural names put them at a disadvantage.
It is you who can't seem to get past the racialist side of it. Not everything is black and white, except apparently in your world. Just because a name is not "black-sounding" (not my term - it comes from a link posted a while ago), that does not imply it need be "white sounding". You are the only one who has suggested that.
Methinks your bias has presented itself.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:39 AM
"It isn't about elevating anyone...it is about respecting everyone...and treating everyone equitably."
No, it is not. Apparently you don't understand the goals of the government programmes. They were not about "respect", they were about elevating certain minorities out of poverty and the perceived "disadvantage".
"How can this happen when we see "some people" have such deep biases against those who are different from themselves...as if their way of speaking etc. was the only true way."
Again, I've not said any such thing. But, society as a whole has a preference for such things. I note that you didn't bother to answer the question. Given that you chided Mr. Closeted for his misuse of the language, you seem to have have a double standard here. If his improper use of English is not acceptable, why is someone else's acceptable, based on their 'cultural identity'? Perhaps Mr. Closeted associates himself with some culture that believes in 'freestyle' spelling and sentence structure. Were you not wrong, then, to judge him and chide him for it?
"Do you not see how you present yourself as "better"??"
I have not. I have presented myself as "compliant" with cultural norms. I have nothing against counter-culture movements but, I am at least willing to recognize that such movements carry with them the cost of ostracization by the culture you wish to counter. Apparently that simply fact has eluded you.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:45 AM
Sorry, that should have read "simple fact".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:46 AM
Generally, when one walks into a bank to do one's banking, one expects to see a well-dressed, well-groomed, polite, and English-literate teller to handle the transaction. One is less inclined to do banking with a teller sporting an orange Mohawk, leather vest, full-sleeve tattoo, lip piercing, who calls you "Dude" while handling your banking affairs.
We are, as a society, kind of biased that way. Apparently, Theorist has no such qualms.
Say what you will, your manner of dress, your manner of speaking, and your manner of grooming yourself expresses your ability to function in society. I am hardly unique in saying this. Teachers used to tell us this in school. Business leaders used to tell us this in hiring seminars, consultants still tell us this in their sessions. It fascinates me that anyone disagrees.
I take it Theorist has never run a business.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:53 AM
"Who's culture, Shapley???"
American culture, Theorist.
Are you suggesting that black businessmen, Asian businessmen, or Hispanic businessmen are not more likely to hire the well-groomed, articulate candidate over the lesser so?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:55 AM
" I have no idea what "Black English" is, but if you want to communicate with some inner city Black youth, you need to be able to understand what they are saying...you see...Communication is a reciprocating skill."
Perhaps you should do some research before commenting, then. Methinks you suggested as much to me:
If you go into the inner city and speak textbook English, it is doubtful you will have any difficulty being understood. It is not as if those who speak "Black English" do not comprehend the textbook language, they merely choose not to speak it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:58 AM
Al races wear low hanging pants .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Rick I know a lot of them do and when I was an employer, none of them would have met my dress code. Therefore they would not have been given a second look.
A business is tailored around what customers expect. Not some wannabe trying to make a statement.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:01 AM
"The fact of the matter is, if two people of equal qualifications apply for a job, one well-groomed, with a clean shirt and slacks, and another in baggy pants worn around their knees, with a baggy sweatshirt, you can argue about "cultural identity" all you want but you know which one is most likely to get the job."
None of that has anything to do with the concept of "white privilege." I don't expect society to bend or lower its standards of dress, speech, behavior or attitude to accommodate what you term "counter-culture movements."
The question is still "if two people of equal qualifications apply for a job, [and both are] well-groomed, with a clean shirt and slacks," why should the one named "J'mnsh'a" (your choice of a name, not mine) be at a disadvantage?
And you have still not come up with a valid reason for the black gentleman being stopped in Ladue.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:03 AM
"How can you not see the "white" standard you have set??"
How can you not see that I am not the one who set it? How can you not see the racialist tone of your post? There is nothing "white" about grooming and dress standards. Why can you not comprehend that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Theorist
I believe the name for "Black English" is Ebonics.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:06 AM
Theorist
I believe the name for "Black English" is Ebonics.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:06 AM
I once hired an ex teacher in sales. Privately he referred to those speaking "Black English" as "Webees".
First time I heard it I had to ask what he was talking about.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:11 AM
"The question is still "if two people of equal qualifications apply for a job, [and both are] well-groomed, with a clean shirt and slacks," why should the one named "J'mnsh'a" (your choice of a name, not mine) be at a disadvantage?"
Well, it seems to me if you have one job opening and two equally qualified applicants, you have to select a criteria for choosing between the two. The ability to pronounce their name would seem to be as valid a reason as any other. What criteria would you choose?
"And you have still not come up with a valid reason for the black gentleman being stopped in Ladue."
I'm afraid I don't know this hypothetical gentleman, so I do not know the circumstances of his hypothetical stop. You say it is without reason, but I cannot say whether or not you are correct.
I've noted before that I, who am not black, have been pulled over "for no reason" in various communities, because the officer wanted to know who it was that passing through his community. I did as the law requires, presented my driver's license and answered his inquiries. There are proper times to argue civil liberties, but on a lonely street in the middle of the night arguing against a man with a gun and a badge did not seem to be one of them.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:11 AM
"Okay Shapley...you didn't set the standard you are expecting...mayhap it was your parent's, siblings, neighbors etc."
As I've stated throughout this discussion, it is society's standard. And it is generally the same everywhere: in White neighborhoods, Black neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Asian neighborhoods, mixed-ethnicity neighborhoods, and so on. It is not a "white" construct, it is a societal one. It is based, whether or not you want to believe it, on respect: having enough respect for your employer to show that you want to meet his criteria, having enough respect for your customers that you want to look your best for them, having enough respect for society to show that want to fit in, and having enough respect for yourself to show that you want to "dress for success" when seeking and doing a job.
If you'd paid attention in school, you would know this.
"You are fixated on dress...when I am fixated on equitable treatment".
No, you seem to be fixated on race. You respond to every comment that it is a 'white' standard, a 'white' advantage, a 'white' manner of speech. You appear to be a racialist, one cannot look beyond the racial component of everything. It's not all about race.
Equitable treatment, too, is a reciprocating skill. Respect society and society will respect you.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:21 AM
"Al[l] races wear low hanging pants."
That's true, and all of them tend to get passed over in favour of the well-groomed when applying for employment.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:22 AM
"Dress codes...they even the playing field...they make whites, blacks, pinks and greens meet the same standard...none of which are apparently what they prefer as they all hate them."
How do you know they "all hate them"?
"This is EQUITABLE treatment. They are not saying you must wear Sperry's and Vineyard Vine clothing..."
I have no idea what Vineyard Vine clothing is, but I suspect that if you are in the business of selling Vineyard Vine clothing, there is a good chance that you are expected to wear it, regardless of your race.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 10:26 AM
"What criteria would you choose?"
I would not consider the name as a deciding factor. It's most likely that the individual with the hiring responsibility will choose the person most like him, which is probably true no matter what his race is.
There is nothing unusual or unnatural about that, but it's also then the basis of this "white privilege" phenomenon. Contrary to the degree of unease, anxiety and angst that this discussion has caused among the SO conservatives, it's not the end of the world. "White privilege/advantage" is fully recognized by most Americans of any race, and it simply should be recognized for what it is, compensated for, and gradually reduced, to permit equal treatment to be the new norm.
In any case, our SO conservatives need not worry that anyone will force them to hire members of the "low-pants, ebonics-only, cultural-misfit crowd."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 3:47 PM
"In any case, our SO conservatives need not worry that anyone will force them to hire members of the "low-pants, ebonics-only, cultural-misfit crowd."
So comforting. I seem to recall that I was advised on this forum not to worry, no one would require anyone to perform a marriage ceremony which is against his faith.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 3:53 PM
"White privilege/advantage" is fully recognized by most Americans of any race, and it simply should be recognized for what it is, compensated for, and gradually reduced, to permit equal treatment to be the new norm."
If it is what you say it is, then we've had fifty years of efforts to recognize it for what it is, compensate for it, and gradually reduce it to permit equal treatment to be the new norm. What do you propose, yet another failed federal programme to do that?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 4:01 PM
"In any case, our SO conservatives need not worry that anyone will force them to hire members of the "low-pants, ebonics-only, cultural-misfit crowd."
Don't make promises your government does not intend to keep.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 4:09 PM
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 4:14 PM
"Contrary to the degree of unease, anxiety and angst that this discussion has caused among the SO conservatives......."
Little man, let me state this for the record. Whatever you Lap Dog Leftist Democrats believe to be true causes this Conservative zero unease, anxiety or angst. I know who I am as I believe most Conservatives know they are.
It is funny and yet a little sad watching you all flailing about with your guilt feelings. I have no feelings of guilt as I am comfortable with my actions towards mankind up to and including the young man who tried to buck the line at the Lowe's Service Counter an hour or so ago.
And please stop trying to categorize Conservatives and Republicans all into one of your neat little groups. The Republican mainstream is trying to match the Democrats in stupidity. Grouping the left leaning Republicans with Democrats rather than Conservatives would be more accurate.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 4:19 PM
So common wants a tax on white people to compensate for white privilege now?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 4:51 PM
Old John,
It's hard telling what he wants. I got down to the angst part and my first thought was, this idiot sure has a high opinion of himself and his cohorts that they can create those kinds of feelings in people they do not even know.
I think they should order themselves some hair shirts and punish themselves during the warm months of July and August without air conditioning. Then maybe by Labor Day they would be purified and comfortable in their own skin.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 5:05 PM
I'm still wondering about that black guy that got stopped by police for driving through Ladue. Was that just made up by common so he could follow up by accusing speak out conservatives of being the cause?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 6:18 PM
Actually...you got to the angst part, and suddenly found yourself filled with angst...and a little anger too!
You know what I like about you Wheels? You DO listen to what other people say (read what others write), and consider it...I know this, because if it doesn't agree with what you have decided is your core...you get angry (and filled with angst)! :)
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 5:33 PM
Theorist,
I am going to grade your assumptions of me and how I think and operate. I will number your assumptions to not confuse anybody.
Assumption 1.) "Actually...you got to the angst part, and suddenly found yourself filled with angst...and a little anger too!"
I felt none of those feelings and cannot understand where you came up with that one.
So far as anger, I get a whole lot tired of the silly profiling that Common has a tendency to do with those he disagrees with, but not anger. I do get angry when he puts words in my mouth that I never uttered, but not over his childish profiling.
Your Statement/Question..... You know what I like about you Wheels?
Theorist, I have a hard time seeing where you like anything about me, and that is fine. You once told me I infuriate you. Have you mellowed?
Assumption 2.) "You DO listen to what other people say (read what others write), and consider it..."
You are absolutely correct on the above... I do consider it..... so long as it has not been repeated already to ad nauseum by someone trying to shove their beliefs down my throat, at that point I do not reconsider it.
Assumption 3.) I know this, because if it doesn't agree with what you have decided is your core...you get angry (and filled with angst)!
Nope you missed that one a mile.... see answer to Assumption 1.) Above.......
I do not change my core beliefs for any propaganda that is written by others, but I am not filled with angst or any of the other eleven synonyms I posted.... I am sure there are others.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 6:47 PM
I'm still wondering about that black guy that got stopped by police for driving through Ladue. Was that just made up by common so he could follow up by accusing speak out conservatives of being the cause?
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 6:18 PM
Old John,
I am not sure there even was a black guy "profiled" by police in Ladue. I think Common may have "interpreted" something incorrectly again.
I do know the Police Chief was recently fired in Ladue. I have not followed it very far, but as I understand it he claims he was fired because the Mayor instructed him to profile blacks traveling through Ladue and his standards were so high he refused to do that.... and that was why he was fired.
If I am not mistaken the Mayor denies that. Who knows what really happened. I have not heard a lot of fuss about ratial profiling in Ladue. But if you take Bellville Illinois, that has been a different matter in the past.
However if you were driving a 15 or 20 year old car with 4 different colored fenders, no matter what color you were you might get stopped in Ladue if you kept cruising around. Not many residents out there driving cars like that. Or maybe if your car had all the same color fenders and you had a set of those real tall chromed wheels that cost more than the car you might arouse suspicion while cruising around.
I did read where Ladue recently arrested a burgler that they recognized from past history of burglarizing in Ladue, but this cat was a white honkey..... you know the type "White Priviliged"!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:03 PM
We have had fifty years of trying to recognize, compensate, and reduce "White Privilege", with apparently little success, judging bby the liberal demands that we still have to do all that. Yet, it never seems possible to them that the diagnosis was wrong from the outset. Whatever the case, they've failed; in the diagnosis, the treatment, or both.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:39 PM
PS: Yes I know racial is not spelled "ratial".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:47 PM
I'm just glad all that community organizing in Chicago a few years back took hold so they could have a peaceful Independence Day.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:50 PM
"...wants a tax on white people to compensate for white privilege now?"
I have zero concern about the inane, serial rants from your little buddy, which are effortlessly ignored, but I am curious as to where the "tax on white people comes from?" Clearly, it's something you made up, but why?
As you must have figured out by now, virtually all conservatives, particularly those on SO, partake of "white privilege/advantage" whether they choose to recognize and divulge it or not. But when they exploit their "white privilege/advantage" it is totally without charge and definitely not "taxed."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:55 PM
"...that none of it is self-imposed..."
That would have to mean that the black gentleman driving legally through Ladue, is somehow causing his being stopped for no valid reason. Perhaps it is because of his skin color, which I suggest is not self-imposed.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:46 AM
Just as whites are stopped for driving through gang infested black neighborhoods.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:58 PM
All that's needed is for democrats and republicans in Congress to agree reduce the federal spending, adjust SS/Medicare with marginal changes in rates, eligibility and payout, and reform the tax code to increase revenue which would be used only for deficit reduction.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:41 AM
#1 - Pipe dream.
#2 - Government already collecting record revenues. Only tax code change needed is to lower government revenues.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:01 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 7:55 PM
Are you "white privilege" common?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:04 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:13 AM
You're not very bright.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:04 PM
Now, for one who is against more government in private lives...you sure seem to being judging and ruling on others lives.
It does not matter what the name, the style of clothing, or the slang used...your bias really, really just presented itself.
Some deep thinking may be in order...
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:13 AM
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:12 PM
"counter-cultural names put them at a disadvantage."
Counter-cultural to WHO?? Who's culture is this counter to....???
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:47 AM
Crawl out from under your rock and join the real world.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:16 PM
"I have not. I have presented myself as "compliant" with cultural norms"
Who's culture, Shapley???
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:50 AM
Let me help you out. The culture of the one's who hire and sign the paychecks.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:20 PM
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:20 PM
Which one would think would apply to teachers....Oh, that's right, Theorist lied about that.
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:22 PM
theorist
You just get dumber and dumber.
By the way, I answered the question, and you've probably noticed, you're pretty much the only poster I find to be as sharp as a butter knife.
Why is it OK for blacks to use improper english, but not OK for closeted atheist?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:33 PM
Who's stupid? That's an easy one.
The one that doesn't realize that employers expect job applicants to dress properly and use proper english. The one that doesn't realize that the consumer expects the person he/she is dealing with for a product or service to be properly dressed and use proper english.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:39 PM
I did.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:41 PM
"...with apparently little success,judging by the liberal demands that we still have to do all that."
It's hard to discern what you really mean. From my point of view, "white privilege/advantage" has been drastically reduced from the last known lynching in 1946, to something that is apparent easily denied by the conservative fringe of America. I would call that more than a "little success."
In actuality the claiming that the "diagnosis was wrong from the outset" ignores the major improvements in black --white relations since 1946, starting with the elimination of segregation in the military, integration of public schools, voting rights, and equal opportunity, culminating in the election of President Obama (twice).
Those complaining of black "riots" of the past couple of years, are forgetting about the what happened earlier. Those bothered about the "counter-cultural" aspects of black society are fortunately dealing a strict minority of a minority. As mentioned several times before, no one is demanding that society accept any lowering of standards, and there is nothing for you to feel guilty about. I certainly do not.
It is amazing to me that the race-relations progress made in the past 69 years is so readily discounted and even ignored. One would almost think that conservatives want race-relations to be bad to satisfy some twisted version of their "logic."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:43 PM
"All that's needed is for democrats and republicans in Congress to agree reduce the federal spending, adjust SS/Medicare with marginal changes in rates, eligibility and payout, and reform the tax code to increase revenue which would be used only for deficit reduction."
Look at what is happening in Greece if you want to see why that isn't likely. People don't want to give up their freebies, and politicians are afraid to force them to do so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:47 PM
It is ok for anyone to use improper english, FFF.
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:37 PM
And there it is in a nutshell. Thank you theorist. Discussion over.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:51 PM
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:53 PM
Well, let's start this way...Are you a school teacher?
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:57 PM
"...politicians are afraid to force them to do so."
That may be the case if each side is afraid to take action because the opposite side may gain advantage by "blaming" them.
The solution is for a strong compromise by both parties to do what has to be done. That includes cutting spending and raising taxes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:58 PM
The solution is for a strong compromise by both parties to do what has to be done. That includes cutting spending and raising taxes.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:58 PM
Raise taxes at a time when the government is collecting record revenues. Another butter knife on our hands.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:02 PM
I answered that just last week, when Dug asked.
Are you a traveling salesman, BS?
-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:00 PM
Well pardon me, but I must have missed that. Could you answer the question one more time?
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:03 PM
Still can't read the answer provided? Again, says a lot.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:03 PM
Couldn't agree more FFF...
Why in the world would you want to raise taxes common?
-- Posted by BonScott on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:05 PM
"....but I am curious as to where the "tax on white people comes from?" Clearly, it's something you made up, but why?"
"White privilege/advantage" is fully recognized by most Americans of any race, and it simply should be recognized for what it is, compensated for, and gradually reduced, to permit equal treatment to be the new norm.
I thought you would understand when someone uses the same tactics as you as excuse to call someone a liar.
-- Posted by Old John on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:05 PM
Now back to the real world while so many cry about insignificant flags and white privilege.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:06 PM
"That may be the case if each side is afraid to take action because the opposite side may gain advantage by "blaming" them."
They are afraid of the voters blaming them, and not voting for them the next time.
Yes, if there were no politics, more would get done. The only way to get rid of politics is to quit electing politicians. How do you propose we make that happen? Even when it has been shown conclusively that this politician or that is corrupt, dishonest, and/or untrustworthy, they not only get re-elected but get elevated to higher office. If you know how to get the people willing to vote for honesty and integrity, why not let the rest of us in on it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:06 PM
"It is amazing to me that the race-relations progress made in the past 69 years is so readily discounted and even ignored. One would almost think that conservatives want race-relations to be bad to satisfy some twisted version of their "logic."
It is "the Left", not conservatives, who are constantly bemoaning the status of blacks in America, which points to a failure of those 69 years, as I see it. The vast majority of Americans have grown up with some kind of Affirmative Action in place, Civil Rights laws in place, anti-discrimination laws in place, and "political correctness" imposed upon their speech, and yet "the Left" bemoans "White Privilege" as if nothing has been done to alter the perception that exists.
That being said, the plight of black neighborhoods in many areas is indeed much worse than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The black family structure has been eroding rapidly since the incorporation of leftist reforms. Black unemployment remains high, and rises with every minimum wage increase. Violence in black neighborhoods continues to run rampant - not perpetrated by gangs of white racists riding through their neighborhoods, but perpetrated by their fellow blacks. You cannot ignore those facts and pretend that progress is being made.
Blacks have made great inroads towards representation on television, in film, and in society at large. That is all well and good. For many, this has provided a great improvement in their lives and livelihoods. Then again, most of those are not the counter-culturalists, which has been my point.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 6:46 AM
"...who are constantly bemoaning the status of blacks in America..."
I can say for certain that the liberals I am familiar with and know do not do that. If the conservatives truly cared helping black Americans, why aren't they joining the republican party.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 7:22 AM
"If the conservatives truly cared helping black Americans, why aren't they joining the republican party."
Because Republicans aren't pandering. Republicans want to help Americans, by giving Americans the tools they need to help themselves. They do not propose separate tools for white Americans and for black Americans, but rather tools available for all Americans who are willing to pick them up and use them.
Democrats, on the other hand, pander. They are racialists and make race an factor in every issue. If Republicans say "we want jobs for Americans", the Democrats insert the word "white" into that phrase. You need only read the posts above to recognize that.
If black Americans are to be treated equal, we need to drop the adjective, do we not? And, yet, I see the Democrats having the hardest time doing that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:06 AM
"I can say for certain that the liberals I am familiar with and know do not do that."
Then I can say you haven't been reading this thread, including your own posts. Wasn't it you created the hypothetical black driver in Ladue?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:07 AM
Counter-cultural to WHO?? Who's culture is this counter to....???-- Posted by Theorist on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 8:37 PM
American Culture.
===
"GD America" - Jeremiah Wright, Obama's mentor... or maybe
"Let me tell you, the things that's about to happen, to these honkeys, these crackers, these pigs, these pink people, these --- people. It has been long overdue. It's in me to fight. It's in me to raise up soldiers. It's in me that every time my feet touch the ground the state of Florida- these crackers- they scared. As long as whites keep characterizing blacks as 'ni***rs my feet will be on your MF necks." - New Black Panther Chief of Staff Michelle Williams
===
Do those opinions fit in your "culture"?
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:11 AM
Dug: IMO, the Black Panther flag should be outlawed as a racist hateful flag. Also, the Muslin flag which supports the terrorist and their beheadings of Christians should not be able to fly anywhere in the USA. Let's hear the Liberal Left Wing defend these two flags. After all they came down hard on the Confederate flag.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:33 AM
What's racist about asking why black Americans don't support conservatives?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:57 AM
What's racist about asking why black Americans don't support conservatives?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:57 AM
They do support conservatives.
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:02 AM
"What's racist about asking why black Americans don't support conservatives?"
Nothing. And I didn't say it was.
And you didn't ask why black Americans didn't support conservatives. As I read your post, you were asking why conservatives didn't join the republican party:
" If the conservatives truly cared helping black Americans, why aren't they joining the republican party."
I am not sure why more conservatives aren't joining the [R]epublican party, but I suspect they have become disheartened by the lack of conservatism shown by the party leadership.
If, on the other hand, you were asking why more black Americans weren't joining the [R]epublican party, I would suggest that you ask black Americans, of which I am not. I can only offer an anecdote:
When I was campaigning for office in Cairo, Illinois, a black gentleman approached me at a campaign event, pointed to a Democrat candidate for a different office, and told me:
"That guy is handing out $5 bills. What are you offering?"
I responded: "Honest government."
He shrugged his shoulders and walked away. He wasn't interested in honest government, apparently, he just wanted the money.
Was he representative of black Americans as a whole? I like to think not. But, when presented with the choice between candidate who are proposing the things you claim Americans favour: less spending, lower deficits, and a flatter tax structure, and a candidate who is promising to give them more benefits, many seem to prefer the expanded benefits.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:11 AM
"Black culture, is not counter-culture. (that is a period)...it may be counter-Shapley's culture."
It is counter to the majority of American society's culture, which you ought to be able to figure out. It is not even consistent with "traditional" black culture - you will find precious few blacks born before World War II who share that cultural identity. I have provided evidence that it is mostly recent (i.e., post 1950s) counter-cultural response to what you seem to perceive is a "too-white" society.
American culture is a melting pot of people, they develop mores and societal norms which, when adopted, make people a part of the American culture. Those who do not adopt them and maintain their own cultural identity are free to do so, but they are counter-cultural (counter to the American culture) by doing so.
Also, you prove my point that you cannot put the race issue aside. American culture is American, not black or white or red or yellow. There are sub-categories within it, but the overall tone of society is our primary culture. Sub-cultures can and do exist which are unique, but are not counter-cultural. Chinatowns, for instance, maintain a flavour of traditional Chinese culture but do not try to shock the sensibilities of Americans who go there. African-American has also maintained its identity prior to the 1950s and 1960s without shocking the sensibilities of the rest of America - Soul Food and Jazz music have become a part of the American cultural fabric. While Jazz may have shocked some, as did Rock and Roll in its day, and was perhaps counter-cultural in its time, it has stood the test of time and woven its way into the fabric. To my dismay, rap music seems destined to do the same.
I would expect you to be able to understand that.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:22 AM
"Are you white, Shapley?"
And so we see that you are obsessed with race. Get over it.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:23 AM
"Black people are Americans, so their culture is American too!"
Black Americans are Americans, as I noted earlier. Not all black people are Americans, just as not all white people are Americans.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:24 AM
"Are you beginning to realize that you define culture by YOUR cultural beliefs, and anything or anyone else is in your own term "counter-cultural".
No. I define American culture as the overall culture that forms the fabric of the nation. As I note, there are sub-cultures, such as "Southern Culture" or "New England Culture" or "Western Culture" and so one, which together help weave the overall fabric of American culture.
As a whole, we share certain traits which permit us to fit in and to be accepted one with the other. We speak a common language, more or less, for example. We share common patterns of dress (men tend to wear slacks and shirts, and certain styles of shoes, women tend to dress within a broader outline, but generally follow certain patterns (dresses and skirts for formality, slacks and shorts for leisure, etc.).
When men begin to wear kilts or dresses or high-heels, they become counter-cultural. Such manner of dress may be consistent with traditions in their ancestral lands, but they are not a part of the American fabric. I own a kilt, but I rarely wear it, and when I do, I understand that by doing so I am expressing a connection with a different culture, one that is not a normal part of the American fabric. If one wears a Sari or a Kimono or a Kanzu in America, one does so in an effort to stand out amongst the crowd, which is to say to be counter-cultural.
It's really not that complex, but you seem to want to make it so.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:34 AM
"69 years of progress" he preaches from his stump.
The thought occurs to me that the Bollinger County Sage (brush) knows little of what he speaks.
Yes the block busters of the 50's brought peace, prosperity and happiness to the neighborhoods of North St. Louis. And downtown we built Pruitt Igoe another success story. Then along comes Lyndon and we went to war.... the great "War on Poverty".
I can understand why the Leftists are patting themselves on the back..... just look at their success story.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:37 AM
No, Dug. Black people are Americans, so their culture is American too!
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:10 AM
Theorist
While that may all be true, they are now living in America and the saying "when in Rome do as the Romans do" still holds true.
My ancestors wore wooden shoes. Wouldn't it be pretty silly to insist that we still must be allowed to express our culture on a daily basis?
You Leftists need another cause. This one is getting really stale.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:00 AM
Theorist
I do not practice the culture my ancestors brought.... I do not wear wooden shoes. I comply with the culture the melting pot, which is America, has made of it.
I do not believe trying to stuff that which is mostly an invented culture down the rest of our throats helps their cause.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:15 AM
"Counter-cultural to WHO?? Who's culture is this counter to....???"
I answered that when you asked it. Actually, I think I've answered it more than once.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:31 AM
"Could you direct me to that post, Shapley?"
I suppose.
_____________
"Who's culture, Shapley???"
"American culture, Theorist.
"Are you suggesting that black businessmen, Asian businessmen, or Hispanic businessmen are not more likely to hire the well-groomed, articulate candidate over the lesser so?
"-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:55 AM --"
_____________
I can't help but notice you didn't bother to answer my question at the end of it. One of several, I believe, you left unanswered, though I've tried to answer all of yours.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:43 AM
IMO, We are all Americans who have came from many backgrounds that have added strength to the whole by all of us being different. The country is like a chain and is only as strong as its weakest link. The heritage of all races is what makes the USA unique from other countries.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:51 AM
Counter-cultural (also written "countercultural") is not my word, it is an accepted terminology for cultures which find themselves at odds with the normal dictates of society as a whole (which I think I've already said in slightly different wording).
Merriam-Webster defines it thus:
" a culture whose values and customs are very different from and usually opposed to those accepted by most of society; also : the people who make up a counterculture"
As I say, the wearing of pants around the knees, the naming of names that not follow the normal patterns of names in the area, are counter-cultural. I do not know why you find this so difficult.
You seem to believe that any culture in America is a part of the American culture, and that categorizing them as "counter-cultural" is some sort of a slight. By the aggregate total of American subcultures create a pattern of a whole culture which might rightly be called "American Culture". Many groups, for whatever reason, resist the urge to assimilate into the culture and form their own "counter-cultures" which seek to set them apart. That really can't be argued, as it is a well-known pattern.
I have not said there is anything wrong with being counter-cultural. I have been so myself and will likely find myself counter-cultural in the future. But, if you are going to be counter-cultural, you oughtn't to be surprised to find that the culture you are countering does not take kindly to it, and may even ostracize you for it.
A "melting pot" it as typically a large kettle in which various elements are placed on a fire and melted into a homogenous whole. That homogenous whole is the culture of the pot. This is different from a salad bowl, in which various elements are placed, tossed together, but each retains it own identity and flavour. Salad bowls do not merge into a consistent culture but rather remain a distinct sampling of individual tastes. Neither is more right or wrong than the other, but yet each is different than the other. You can pick the different elements out of a salad bowl and identify them as distinct and separate. Not so with a melting pot.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:01 AM
When government dictates how much the businessman has to pay the new employee he is less likely to hire a poor person that lacks proper attire to help with that well groomed look, even if he is to work in the back room.
If he could hire someone that didn't fit the first impression of someone well adapted to society for less money, he might do so to fill the backroom position.
Another example of "We just want to help you" hurting one's chance to become more integrated into the American culture.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:01 AM
"There is just as much dishonesty found in a suit as that found in jeans and t-shirt."
And that has what, exactly, to do with the discussion at hand?
Notice, also, that I did not suggest a suit. That was your description. A tattoo parlor, by the way, is counter-cultural, so they will likely be seeking counter-cultural applicants. However, understanding the Queen's English is a benefit in a tattoo parlor, as it may save the parlor a lawsuit if they can spell the words they are permanently etching on their clients' skins.
I've never applied for a job as a lumberjack in Alaska, but I suspect you stand a better chance of getting the job when well-groomed and dressed in slacks than when wearing dreadlocks and wearing a Bob Marley tie-dyed shirt and sporting a nose ring. Over-the road truck drivers frequently wear uniforms and/or have dress codes, since they will be representing the companies for which they drive, so yes, I think being well-groomed and well-dressed will be an advantage there, as well.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:07 AM
"The heritage of all races is what makes the USA unique from other countries."
How many other countries have you visited? I've been to a few and I can tell you that heritages of varying races is hardly unique to the United States. Have you been to the formerly French Colonial Africa? Perhaps to London, in the United Kingdom? Have you been to Hong Kong? Australia, perhaps? All have varieties of cultures from various races.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:12 AM
"You never said "well groomed" until your last post...I support cleanliness...and believe it can be done with a nose ring too!"
"Well-groomed" was a component of the question I asked initially:
"Are you suggesting that black businessmen, Asian businessmen, or Hispanic businessmen are not more likely to hire the well-groomed, articulate candidate over the lesser so?"
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:28 AM
"?"..your suggested idea that a well dressed candidate is the best candidate."
No I didn't. I said "well-groomed" and "articulate". In a prior question, I believe, I suggested slacks and a shirt as opposed to baggy pants, but I thought that question was directed at Commonsensematters.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:30 AM
Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:12 AM
Shapley: To use your example of a salad bowl, America's salad bowl is a lot larger than those of the countries that you listed.
Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:56 AM
Theorist: The weakest link would be those that would want to divide or harm the other links and can change from time to time. And no I will not name any weak links at the moment, use your common sense.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:32 AM
A well groomed candidate who arrived on time and profess knowledge of the job requirements would be IMO a leading applicant.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:43 AM
"To use your example of a salad bowl, America's salad bowl is a lot larger than those of the countries that you listed."
True, but we are hardly unique.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 11:47 AM
Shapley: True we are not unique, we are Unique.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 12:27 PM
I am Independent...with a large propensity for truth.
-- Posted by Theorist on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:05 AM
Theorist,
Did not have time to respond adequately earlier as I had to leave.
I have thought about that statement and must say, I am not sure you recognize "truth" when you see it.
Take for instance your statement about being Independent. Being "Independent", as in nobody tells you what to do I can believe, but I also believe you meant it as you have stated before, that you are an "Independent" politically. That I am not buying and I don't believe most of us on here believe it. That is where I think you cannot recognize the truth. You are as far "Left" as any poster on here, that is so obvious.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 1:59 PM
What was it Biden said about Obama, clean cut or something?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:14 PM
Maybe liberal democrats can help explain the bias:
Harry Reid - "He [Reid] was wowed by Obama's oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama -- a 'light-skinned' African American 'with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one."
What "culture" would Reid be referring to? Sounds like "black privilege" to me...
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:16 PM
"That being said, the plight of black neighborhoods in many areas is indeed much worse than it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The black family structure has been eroding rapidly since the incorporation of leftist reforms. Black unemployment remains high, and rises with every minimum wage increase."
I recognize this as another favorite conservative assumption, that everything was perfect until those nasty "leftists" started forcing those superfluous "reforms" on the hard working black families.
"The Great Migration was the movement of approximately seven million Black people out of the Southern United States to the North, Midwest and Western states from 1916 to 1970. Blacks migrated to escape widespread racism in the South, to seek employment opportunities in industrial cities of the North, to get better education for their children, and to pursue what was widely perceived to be a more prosperous life.
"Some historians differentiate between the Great Migration from 1910 to 1940, numbering roughly two million migrants, and the Second Great Migration, from 1940 to 1970. Not only was the Second Migration larger, with five million or more people relocating, but the demographic differed, and migrants moved to different destination. During the Second Great Migration many moved from Texas and Louisiana to California, where there was a new range of jobs in the defense industry."
So many factors came into play, "... the incorporation of leftist reforms..." was hardly the sole cause of black family decline. One of the contributing factors, "the denial of welfare if there was a 'man' in the house" actually goes back to about 1935, and would seem to be much more of a conservative maneuver than liberal. The absence of health care was a further issue. In most instances, if a family was on welfare, they received Medicaid, but if they took a job, they lost that coverage.
In any case, black family apprehension and fragmentation was also due to increasing unemployment caused by industrial automation, work productivity and eventual globalization with US companies moving jobs overseas.
Even with these disadvantages the overall percentage of black families in poverty decreased from about 55% in 1959, to about 30% in 1975, to a low of 21% in 2000, and increased slightly to under 26% in 2012. The poverty rate has been cut in half over the past in the last 50 years.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:24 PM
In any case, black family apprehension and fragmentation was also due to increasing unemployment caused by industrial automation, work productivity and eventual globalization with US companies moving jobs overseas.-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:24 PM
More liberal tripe and talking points. Socialist policies that you and your liberal presidents support have been researched and proven to be the main cause of the destruction of the black family and economic ruin.
How about those housing projects you support? The number one cause of gangs and imprisonment of black men.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:28 PM
"I recognize this as another favorite conservative assumption, that everything was perfect until those nasty "leftists" started forcing those superfluous "reforms" on the hard working black families."
And where, exactly, did I say or suggest they were "perfect"?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:36 PM
"One of the contributing factors, "the denial of welfare if there was a 'man' in the house" actually goes back to about 1935, and would seem to be much more of a conservative maneuver than liberal. The absence of health care was a further issue. In most instances, if a family was on welfare, they received Medicaid, but if they took a job, they lost that coverage."
Which is to say that the government took over the role of "breadwinner" in the family. That is exactly the sort of thing "the Left" chooses to ignore. Funny how you attempt to blame the welfare system on Republicans.
Here are some statitics on that:
"In 1965, Daniel Patrick Moynihan caused a stir when he reported on the growing number of black children being born to single mothers and growing up without a father in the home, contending that the trend towards fatherless families would reduce those children's chances of succeeding academically and economically. Has that held true?
"Princeton University professor Sara McLanahan and Christopher Jencks, professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, write that Moynihan's assessment of the changing structure of black families was right on target: In 1965, 25 percent of black children and 5 percent of white children lived in families with a single mother. Since 2003, around 50 percent of black children have been raised by unmarried mothers. The comparable rate for whites has sat around 18 to 20 percent since the mid-1990s. In 1960, just 5 percent of births were to unmarried mothers. That number had reached 41 percent for all races by 2010 and had reached 72 percent for blacks by 2010.
"McLanahan and Jencks note that nature of single motherhood has changed drastically over the last 50 years: Single mothers today are far less likely ever to have been married than the single mothers of the past; in 1960, 95 percent of single mothers had actually been married at some point in the past. Today, only 50 percent of single mothers had been married previously.
"Mothers who have not completed college have seen the biggest rise in single-motherhood. From 1980 to 2010, the number of black children living with unmarried mothers without a high school diploma had risen from 55 to 66 percent; the number living with unmarried mothers who had not finished college had risen from 43 to 50 percent; and the number living with unmarried mothers who had graduated from college had risen from 23 to 28 percent.
"The rise in single motherhood among less educated women has created economic struggles for families, as single mothers tend to have lower earnings than married mothers. McLanahan and Jencks note that families headed by unmarried mothers had a 40 percent poverty rate in 2013, compared to an 8 percent poverty rate for families headed by a married couple.
"The impact of the single-motherhood trend on children has been added instability and complexity, say the authors, with the children of unmarried mothers being more likely to have half-siblings and to live with multiple adults. Before the child of an unmarried mother reaches the age of five, 61 percent of single mothers will live with a new partner, while 11 percent will live with three or more partners. The researchers note that a child who grows up with only one of his biological parents is 40 percent less likely to graduate from high school, with the absence of a father leading to behavioral issues and delinquency.
"McLanahan and Jencks also note that past studies indicate the children of an absent father have less chances of becoming employed."
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:44 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:24 PM
From the keyboard of the man who claims the last lynching in this country took place 69 years ago in 1946. My findings say the last lynching which was by dragging behind a truck was done in 1998.
Where does this clown get his facts I wonder?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:44 PM
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:24 PM
How are those great cities of Detroit and St. Louis looking now days common?...
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:54 PM
So, it would appear that government programmes helped drive black fathers out of black homes, which has led to many of the problems of crime, poverty, lack of education, and joblessness we see today.
"Even with these disadvantages the overall percentage of black families in poverty decreased from about 55% in 1959, to about 30% in 1975, to a low of 21% in 2000, and increased slightly to under 26% in 2012. The poverty rate has been cut in half over the past in the last 50 years."
Washington Post: Seven Charts Show The Black/White Economic Gap Hasn't Budged In Fifty Years
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 3:09 PM
"Which is to say that the government took over the role of "breadwinner" in the family."
That seems to be what you claim "is to say." All I said is that it is not the only factor and the majority of black families are not in poverty.
No one is defending "single-parenthood" and there is no doubt that it is detrimental to the children. As for what to do with them, my choice is to help them as best we can, and find ways to reduce the problem of single motherhood (planned parenthood sounds reasonable.)
What's your recommendation?
And incidentally, I did not "...blame the welfare system on Republicans," I said the idea of kicking families off of welfare if a man is present, seems more like a conservative idea, rather than liberal. Had nothing to do with welfare in general.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 3:15 PM
"(planned parenthood sounds reasonable.)"
Planned Parenthood already kills enough black babies, methinks. The solution seems to be in things such as the "Fatherhood Initiative" and other programmes geared toward getting black males more involved in the black family structure. Killing babies is not the solution to restoring a sense of life's value.
"I said the idea of kicking families off of welfare if a man is present..."
I am not aware that has ever been a part of any conservative proposal for welfare reform.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 3:30 PM
According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009. The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total. Their most recent numbers are from 2008. Similarly, AGI tells us that Hispanic women accounted for 25% of all U.S. abortions in 2008, though Hispanics make up just 16.3% of the U.S. population. The CDC lists the percentage of Hispanic abortions at 20.6%. Compare those numbers to non-Hispanic whites, who make up 63.7% of America's population, but account for only 36% of all U.S. abortions (37.7% according to the CDC).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 3:39 PM
"People stare at each other looking for blame."
Don't blame me, I have been a lifelong Conservative.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 4:44 PM
Rick,
Somewhere, I have a Cap with the Confederate Flag on it that a neighbor in Gulf Shores gave me. Somebody had given it to him and he never wears a cap so he said you may as well have it.
I have never worn it, but if a proper occasion pops up where I can upset a few Leftists, I will dig it out and wear it. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 6:28 PM
How are family statistics affected when families are broken up by social policies?
Is a mother with two at home and a husband at another address counted as a two parent family on welfare or a single mother on welfare?
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 6:44 PM
Rick,
Maybe I should see if I can find it.
I am like you. Don't tell me that I cannot do something. About 10 years ago I was living in a nice sub-division with rules. Now I believe in obeying reasonable rules if all comply. But I had a neighbor who was letting his property run down and it was affecting mine and my neighbors property. I complained to the committee and one of the idiot officers told me, well we cannot say something to one of our neighbors and offend him. Knowing their hot button was pickup trucks, which they wanted parked in our garages. I did not have a personal pickup that I drove, but I told him some day someone is going to buy an old wreck of a pickup and drive it to work and you will be hard put to stop it. He said we have a nuisance clause. I said so what.
The very next morning I called my friend the used car dealer and said.... Ernie, I want you to find me the nastiest looking pickup truck you can find. He said I have just the thing for you, it would stink a buzzard off a gut wagon. I said bring it over. It was an old dark blue diesel with the paint about washed off and a 1 ton dually. A perfect vehicle for my purpose. And did I mention the pile of junk in the back that came with it. One of the duals was flopping on the rim as it went flat and came loose from the rim. You had to raise the hood and squirt either in it in July cause all of the glo plugs were burned out, and it smoked like a bomb. My first trip out was to the guy that told me you couldn't fuss about your neighbors to give him a check for the annual sub division association dues. I left it running in front of his house and banged on the door. He did not say a word then or during the year and a half or so I drove it to work. Traded it back to Ernie on a Mercedes.
Funnest vehicle I ever owned.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 6:55 PM
Posted by semo471 on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:33 AM
Haven't heard any comments from the Left over the two flags that remain in the USA to fly at will while the Confederate flag is being wiped out of history.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 6:59 PM
Flush the toilet .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 7:19 PM
Rick, be careful on how many times you flush the toilet. Because there are regulations on that too...:)
-- Posted by BonScott on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 8:45 PM
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:14 PM
"...while the Confederate flag is being wiped out of history."
Why would you say that? Even in South Carolina, the flag is only supposed to be moved across the street to a flagpole in a historical museum.
You'll still be able to go down there to salute it if that's what you want.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:37 PM
The Leftists are probably going to see hell feeze over long before they eradicate the Confederate Flag in the South.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:49 PM
The Leftists are probably going to see hell feeze over long before they eradicate the Confederate Flag in the South.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:49 PM
The Leftists are probably going to see hell feeze over long before they eradicate the Confederate Flag in the South.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:49 PM
Sorry for the triple post.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:54 PM
Posted by commonsensematters on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 9:37 PM
Common: Do you want to salute the Black Panthers flag or the Muslim flag which if you don't seem to have any problems with.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:10 PM
One would think democrats would revere the flag their ancestors created.
-- Posted by Old John on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 10:11 PM
"Do you want to salute the Black Panthers flag or the Muslim flag..."
Why would I do that? I'm not asking for any flag to be flown nor any flag except the American flag to be saluted (and you don't even to do that if you prefer not to.)
If the South Carolina Congress votes to move the Confederate flag down the street, that's their business. If you want to fly any flag outside of your house, have at it. It won't bother me a bit.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 7:02 AM
Maybe common sense is starting to return instead of all the knee-jerk reaction we have been seeing.
And I don't mean Common the Bollinger County Sage (brush).
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 7:09 AM
I'll ask the Liberals on here once again do you support the Black Panthers flag or the Muslim flag and what they mean. Come on it's not that hard....you all jumped on the Confederate flag real fast for being one of hatred so what about these other 2 flags that are for real full of hate.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 7:13 AM
"...do you support the Black Panthers flag or the Muslim flag..."
Obviously no. Why would I?
"...you all jumped on the Confederate flag..."
That's totally incorrect. I didn't "jump all over anything." Show it where ever you want. What I did say was that displaying it does not mean you are a "racist," but if you are in fact "racist" you are more likely to display or "wear" it. And in actuality the same thing can be said of a BP flag (whatever that is.)
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 8:56 AM
"Such a staunch supporter of "black advantage"
What does that mean? And why would I care what a BP flag is?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 10:36 AM
Rick, The democrat mayor will fix it.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 4:14 PM
The mayor of Baltimore fired the police commissioner. Glad that's all better now.
-- Posted by Old John on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 4:32 PM
The following showed up in my e-mail last night. I checked it out and the Baltimore Sun denies it came from their paper. The article credited to Ian Duncan is very thought provoking.
Regardless of who wrote it and while I do not agree with how it was presented, I find it interesting and hard to disagree with. Take it for what it is worth.
-------------------------------------
"The Baltimore Sun" is definitely not known as a Conservative newspaper. This very well written assessment of the situation in USA comes as something of a surprise.. some objective observations about other races that have come to the USA and successfully integrated into our society.
This article will obviously be called racist, and will upset the liberals, but they should really think about the message and this deeply rational point of view. Sometimes the truth is hard to accept!
The Black Dilemma
"For almost 150 years the United States has been conducting an interesting experiment. The subjects of the experiment: black people and working-class whites.
The hypothesis to be tested: Can a people taken from the jungles of Africa and forced into slavery be fully integrated as citizens in a majority white population?
The whites were descendants of Europeans who had created a majestic civilization. The former slaves had been tribal peoples with no written language and virtually no intellectual achievements. Acting on a policy that was not fair to either group, the government released newly freed black people into a white society that saw them as inferiors. America has struggled with racial discord ever since.
Decade after decade the problems persisted but the experimenters never gave up. They insisted that if they could find the right formula the experiment would work, and concocted program after program to get the result they wanted. They created the Freedmans Bureau, passed civil rights laws, tried to build the Great Society, declared War on Poverty, ordered race preferences, built housing projects, and tried midnight basketball and countless entitlement and welfare programs to no avail.
Their new laws intruded into peoples lives in ways that would have been otherwise unthinkable. They called in National Guard troops to enforce school integration. They outlawed freedom of association. Over the protests of parents, they put white children on buses and sent them to black schools and vice-versa. They tried with money, special programs, relaxed standards, and endless hand wringing to close the achievement gap. To keep white backlash in check they began punishing public and even private statements on race. They hung up Orwellian public banners that commanded whites to Celebrate Diversity! and Say No to Racism. Nothing was off limits if it might salvage the experiment to the unfairness to the white population.
Some thought that what W.E.B. DuBois called the Talented Tenth would lead the way for black people. A group of elite, educated blacks would knock down doors of opportunity and show the world what blacks were capable of. It didn't work.
There is a Talented Tenth. They are the black Americans who have become entrepreneurs, lawyers, doctors and scientists. But ten percent is not enough. For the experiment to work, the ten percent has to be followed by a critical mass of people who can hold middle-class jobs and promote social stability. That is what is missing. The Talented Tenth was the direct result of affirmative action and reverse discrimination.
Through the years, too many black people continue to show an inability to function and prosper in a culture unsuited to them. Detroit is bankrupt, the south side of Chicago is a war zone, and the vast majority of black cities all over America are beset by degeneracy and violence. And blacks never take responsibility for their failures. Instead, they lash out in anger and resentment that is supported by a liberal press.
Across the generations and across the country, as we have seen in Detroit, Watts, Newark, Los Angeles, Cincinnati, and now Ferguson, rioting and looting are just one racial incident away. The white elite would tell us that this doesn't mean the experiment has failed. We just have to try harder. We need more money, more time, more understanding, more programs, and more opportunities. What do you call, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results??
But nothing changes no matter how much money is spent, no matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many black geniuses are portrayed on TV, and no matter who is president. Some argue its a problem of culture, as if culture creates peoples behavior instead of the other way around. Others blame white privilege. They pressure the movie industry and the commercial industry to feature blacks in almost every commercial and leading roles in movies or the watchdog committees they have will boycott the product or the movie. Extortion, plain and simple.
But since 1965, when the elites opened Americas doors to the Third World, immigrants from Asia and India people who are not white, not rich, and not connected have quietly succeeded. While the children of these people are winning spelling bees and getting top scores on the SAT, black youths are committing half the country's violent crime, which includes viciously punching random white people on the street for the thrill of it that has nothing to do with poverty.
The experiment has failed. Not because of white culture, or white privilege, or white racism. The fundamental problem is that American black culture has evolved into an un-fixable and crime ridden mess. They do not want to change their culture or society, and expect others to tolerate their violence and amoral behavior. They have become socially incompatible with other races by their own design, not because of the racism of others - but by their own hatred of non-blacks.
Our leaders don't seem to understand just how tired their white subjects are with this experiment. *They don't understand that white people aren't out to get black people; they are just exhausted with them. They are exhausted by the social pathologies, the violence, the endless complaints, and the blind racial solidarity, the bottomless pit of grievances, the excuses, and the reflexive animosity. The liberal
press and the elites explain everything with racism, and refuse to believe that white frustration has almost reached the boiling point."---
"You can't legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government can't give to anybody anything that the government doesn't first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they don't have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
Ian Duncan
The Baltimore Sun , May 30, 2015
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 5:13 PM
Socialist policies that you and your liberal presidents support have been researched and proven to be the main cause of the destruction of the black family and economic ruin.
How about those housing projects you support? The number one cause of gangs and imprisonment of black men.
-- Posted by Dug on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 2:28 PM
Why have these policies black families at such an alarming rate and not white families?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 6:20 PM
"So, it would appear that government programmes helped drive black fathers out of black homes, which has led to many of the problems of crime, poverty, lack of education, and joblessness we see today."
But these programs are race neutral. Why do you keep mentioning race?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 6:22 PM
"It is "the Left", not conservatives, who are constantly bemoaning the status of blacks in America," -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 6:46 AM
So, it would appear that government programmes helped drive black fathers out of black homes, which has led to many of the problems of crime, poverty, lack of education, and joblessness we see today.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 3:09 PM
According to 2010 census data, African Americans make up 12.6% of the U.S. population but the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports that black women accounted for 35.4% of all abortions in 2009. The Guttmacher Institute (AGI) puts the percentage of black abortions at 30% of the U.S. total.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Jul 7, 2015, at 3:39 PM
Apparently you don't understand the goals of the government programmes. They were not about "respect", they were about elevating certain minorities out of poverty and the perceived "disadvantage".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Jul 6, 2015, at 9:45 AM
-- Posted by Robespierre on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 6:32 PM
"But these programs are race neutral. Why do you keep mentioning race?"
Affirmative Action was never race neutral. It's primary purpose presumably was to overcome the "white advantage" they are all moaning about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 8:58 PM
"But these programs are race neutral. Why do you keep mentioning race?"
Affirmative Action was never race neutral. It's primary purpose presumably was to overcome the "white advantage" they are all moaning about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 8:58 PM
Why have these policies black families at such an alarming rate and not white families?
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 6:20 PM
Some families used these policies as a hand up to self sufficiency. Some families used them as a way of life.
That was an easy one to answer.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 9:16 PM
Affirmative Action was never race neutral. It's primary purpose presumably was to overcome the "white advantage" they are all moaning about.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Jul 8, 2015, at 8:58 PM
If you could follow the discussion, you would know I wasn't talking about affirmative action.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:17 AM
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:17 AM
Then what are you talking about El Spicoli? Affirmative Action is just one example...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:49 AM
"If you could follow the discussion, you would know I wasn't talking about affirmative action."
If you were following the discussion, you would know I was. I believe it is the only programme I mentioned by name. Since you addressed your comment to me, it seemed a reasonable assumption you were addressing my posts, not yours.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:35 AM
As a friend pointed out to me, it is amazing how many "independent thinkers" weren't offended by "The Dukes of Hazzard", the Rebel Flag, or team mascots until "the Left" told them the ought to be.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:46 AM
Should the federal congress make a law banning the confederate battle flag from confederate soldier cemeteries? Sound to me like one of those things reserved to the states to decide.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 10:07 AM
-- Posted by Atheists are Rational on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 10:13 AM
Science Boy still isn't as smart as he thinks he is...
-- Posted by BonScott on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 10:21 AM
Bon, Are they now teaching college boys that the South succeeded?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 10:24 AM
The support is for the right of the States to secede, a right the Declaration of Independence asserts.
Small wonder there is a movement afoot to remove the Declaration of Independence from display.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 11:42 AM
"...a right the Declaration of Independence asserts."
You mean as in "...whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it..."
...in order to perpetuate a "government" that denies the clause that states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."
That is all men except those that we choose to enslave.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 11:57 AM
That's right. As when a government agrees to a "Great Compromise" to lure the states into the union, and then begins to violate that compromise, undermine the laws, and tells the states they cannot leave the union once they've joined.
"Nay, but for terror of his wrathful Face,
I swear I will not call Injustice Grace;
Not one Good Fellow of the Tavern but
Would kick so poor a Coward from the place."
- Omar Khayyam -
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 1:03 PM
Where in the Constitution does it say that states can "leave" any time they want?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 1:56 PM
"Where in the Constitution does it say that states can "leave" any time they want?"
Try the Tenth Amendment. Where does it say they can't?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 2:03 PM
The CSA vice president must have made that speech in the Conch Republic because Constone won't google past dog breeding.
Maybe it was in Dade County Georgia? I sayed out out of the state and the Union 'til about 1947. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 2:23 PM
Should have read "It stayed"
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 2:25 PM
Theorist, What caused the churches to burn?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 3:10 PM
As I said, the flag has flown for decades and few were offended by it until they were told to be so.
If you don't believe in it, it's just a piece of cloth. What next? Will I be forbidden from wearing my kilt because it may offend the offspring of some long-ago victim of Scottish strife?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 3:17 PM
So are you pretending Theorist?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 3:33 PM
Theorist, What caused the churches to burn?
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 3:10 PM
Still waiting for an answer. Maybe this will help. I'm sure there is something more recent than this report but it is a start.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 3:47 PM
"A swastika has been around over 3000 years. But how do you feel about it now Shapley?"
It is a symbol of a part of human history. It does not bother me, nor does it bother most people.
When "Hogan's Heroes" was created, with memories of the war still fresh in the minds of many, it was surprising that four of the principles Nazi characters were played by Jewish people, some of whose families had fled Europe to avoid persecution. They were able to find the humour in parodying life in a German P.O.W. camp. It seems the farther we move from the events, the more sensitive people become about them, which strikes me as entirely backward.
The "Dukes of Hazzard" is a pretty harmless television programme, the best I recall of it. I don't recall any racist overtones. The Gen. Lee of that show was a car which spent as much time airborne as on the ground, with the action slowed to give us a view of its undersides as it jumped this or that obstacle the police cruisers were unable to repeat. Senseless, but funny to many and hardly "hate-filled". I really rather doubt that many watching that show felt any connection to slavery, Jim Crow, or the lynching of blacks. None of that was portrayed in the show. And, yet, the show has to go because some people who apparently don't know how to change channel on their television sets are offended by its presence, and thus proclaim that you aren't sensitive enough if you aren't, as well.
It is this browbeating that I find offensive.
By the way, the Japanese flag was represented by the Rising Sun. My uncle died from a Japanese Kamikaze attack. Still, I am able to watch the Sun rise in the morning without being offended. I even have a number of books about the war that have images of Rising Sun flags on the covers.
Why are we required to hate the Swastika or the Rebel Flag and not the Rising Sun? It seems America's faux outrage is highly selective.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 4:03 PM
G.H., I don't look twice at a Confederate flag on the back of a pick up, couldn't care less. I did look twice at the guy standing in front of Walmart with his whole face tattooed and a bunch of rings hanging from his nose and fish hooks in his brows. No wonder to me why he can't find a job.
Theorist, I see you are using the common tactic, trying to accuse Shapley of flying a Confederate flag and being racist. Just geez, don't you know that is so easy to figure out. Try something different for a change.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:54 PM
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 5:35 PM
Rick: That shows you how much the NAACP knows....they don't know Jack.
We just got back from Nashville and at a museum near the Grand Ole Opry is a replica of the General Lee....lots of folks around it taking photos. I just saluted as I drove by. Now Liberals go ahead and have a panic attack, because I don't care.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:57 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:29 PM
Theorist: It's a free country, I can think what I want to and express my opinions until Pres. Pinky signs an executive order against it or the SCOTUS says otherwise. Get over it, the world doesn't revolve around the PC crowd.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:49 PM
"Do you fly the Japanese flag, Shapley? Proudly?"
I am not Japanese. If my neighbor were, and he chose to fly one, it's no skin off my nose.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:55 PM
Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:54 PM
OJ: The USA is ran by the PC crowd and the loudest minority of opinions over the more quiet majority and their opinions.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:59 PM
Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 8:54 PM
Theorist: Well Miss Pinkett, and your actions indicate just what type of person you are...
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:03 PM
"Really now? Well, I wonder how a prospective employee would fair when sporting a giant one cut into his hair...or tattooed on his bicep...or merely as a symbol on the pocket of his polo shirt???"
A strange queation given your position on baggy pants and nose rings. How did you phrase it: "Are you beginning to realize that you define culture by YOUR cultural beliefs, and anything or anyone else is in your own term "counter-cultural".
You seem to be okay with judging people and restricting their fashion choices, as long as it is judging people and restricting fashions with which _you_ disagree. You just don't want others doing the same.
Can you not see that you ate trying to define acceptable culture by YOUR standards?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:07 PM
Theorist: Don't think you want to thank me. Have a great night and don't be so angry.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:09 PM
Now Memphis wants to dig up the bones of Nathan Bedford Forrest and his wife, and tEar down a statue erected in his honour. Where will the madness end?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:11 PM
Meanwhile, Detroit prepares to unveil a statue to Satan. Welcome to America, folks.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:12 PM
Shapley: It won't end till the PC folks rewrite history and take out the Civil War.
Saw on the local Nashville news that the State of Tennessee will plant trees along the right away to hide a 20 foot statue of Gen. Forrest on private property that can be seen from I-65 going into Nashville. The owner said go ahead and plant your trees I'll just put a higher pedestal on the statue.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:19 PM
Well Miss Pinkett you woke up the Atheist or are you just switching user names.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:36 PM
Why is it my problem? I support free speech, as does the Constitution. Free speech has to include speech you don't like if it is to mean anything at all.
I really don't care if South Carolina flies a flag or not, since I don't live there. What troubles me is the outrage over a piece of cloth to create yeet another empty gesture.
They renamed the park in Memphis that was named for Forrest some years ago, to heal the city. It apparently didn't help, because they now feel the need to kick his bones out, as well. Will this finally heal the city? I doubt it. No doubt they will feel compelled to erect a toilet atop the site of his grave, as the Iranians did with that of the Shah's patents. No doubt, they still won't be healed.
There are many people walking about with Swastika's tattooed upon themselves. They do not concern me. Nor do Rebel flags, Black Panther Party flags, Rising Sun Flags, or USSR flags ( of which I have one, somewhere).
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:40 PM
Guess when you run the course with the Atheist you will switch over to Common. Not good to be so angry.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:41 PM
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 7:54 PM
"I most certainly did not! And you can't prove it."
No need to prove it.
"Did you answer the question? Do you have double standards, Shapley..."
You will prove it yourself, just keep talking. :)
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:42 PM
BTW, on my 9:41pm post I left out Theorist or Miss Pinkett as the person that my comment was directed to.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:46 PM
"Not a strange question...I had to put it into a perspective that you could relate to..."
Hmmm. So, in your world, anyone not agreeing with your point of view does so because of a failure to "relate"? Your worldview is very narrow.
As I noted, During the war, and in the aftermath, we did not seek to prohibit swastikas, rising Suns, nor images of Mussolini. It seems that only in the past couple of generations have we become such weenies that we can't tolerate such things for fear of offending people.
We have, in essence created a hatred for those who we perceive to hate, as measured by their attachment to symbols we perceive to be hate-related. It is simply unfathomable to the simple minds of the mob that peoples' attachment to these things could be related to anything other than that which the simple-minded perceive them to be. They hate these things because thay have been told they must hate them, lest they be hateful. They do not even see the conflict of that.
Myself, I cannot see how they can harbour such hatred for inanimate objects.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:52 PM
Haven't heard anyone "moaning", but there sure has been a whole lot of denying and whining that "it ain't so" going on...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 6:46 AM
Theorist,
Just reading this..... I only heard people stating facts regarding non existent "white privilege" as you Leftists describe it. So far as whining, never heard any whining, unless we can count your carrying on wanting more gun control on the honest citizens every time a shot is fired in this country.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:56 PM
Semo471 out for now, time to watch reruns of the "Dukes of Hazzard".
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:57 PM
I don't see how my standards can be considered double standards. I have not asked to silence anyone, nor supported one counter-culture over another. Wearing a Swastika puts one at no less a disadvantage than wearing baggy pants, and I have not suggested otherwise.
I have not proposed banning baggy pants, Che Sweatshirts, nor Swastikas, so there seems nothing in my standards that is inconsistent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:58 PM
I don't see how my standards can be considered double standards. I have not asked to silence anyone, nor supported one counter-culture over another. Wearing a Swastika puts one at no less a disadvantage than wearing baggy pants, and I have not suggested otherwise.
I have not proposed banning baggy pants, Che Sweatshirts, nor Swastikas, so there seems nothing in my standards that is inconsistent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:58 PM
I don't see how my standards can be considered double standards. I have not asked to silence anyone, nor supported one counter-culture over another. Wearing a Swastika puts one at no less a disadvantage than wearing baggy pants, and I have not suggested otherwise.
I have not proposed banning baggy pants, Che Sweatshirts, nor Swastikas, so there seems nothing in my standards that is inconsistent.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:58 PM
Sorry for the repetition. My tablet is not cooperating, again.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 9:59 PM
I am not hating the flag, I believe it belongs in a museum...it is just time for it to go. But I will tell you this, people fly that flag proudly for all the wrong reasons. It is concerning...
-- Posted by Theorist on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 3:58 PM
I have never flown the Confederate Flag, I do not own one to fly.... But if I did choose to fly it, do you feel you have the right to stop it?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 10:42 PM
"You bet seminky! It is a free country..and your actions indicate just what type of person you are..."
Careful there Theorist. To me it sounds like you are making fun of Polish People and I am offended. My Aunt married a Polish gentleman, salt of the earth and the family loved him dearly. He has passed on and cannot defend himself, but it offends me that you would be so cruel and thoughtless to make fun of Polish people.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 10:58 PM
"You seem to be okay with judging people and restricting their fashion choices, as long as it is judging people and restricting fashions with which _you_ disagree. You just don't want others doing the same."
It is the so called "Moral Majority" police at work. They would like to ban everything that disagrees with their self styled Political Correctness.
There is definitely nothing "Moral" about it and I do not believe it is a "Majority" either. Maybe we could start calling them the "Oral" Minority. They are noisey and "talk" a big story.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 11:05 PM
Yes, it is the Same statue, looking for a home. When it failed to find one in Oklahoma, the sights wete set on Arkansas. Whan that fell through, the planned for Detroit, which some say is close to Hell as it is likely to get. The unveiling is set fot July 25th, but may never happen. The goal is to make noise, I don't think they care so much about it actually finding a home.
I visited Hell when I was up in Detroit. Not much to see, but you can get iced water and ice cream, there. I don't recall them having any iced tea, though, at least nothing that would qualify as such using my standard, which Theorist believes to be skewed, despite my preference for black tea, apparently. I am supposed to regard all tea equally, I presume. We are only as strong as our weekest leaf, and all that.
For my part, I am not offended by the Satan statue, which doesn't actually portray Satan himself but rather some lesser demon, as I understand it. It seems even the Satanists are squeemish about carving a graven image of the big guy Himself.
I took a photo with a statue of "Pluto", an underworld figure who bears a striking resemblance to the Devil as we know him. He was in the basement of a hotel in Indiana, beside the entrance to a bar that bears his name. I think Donald Trump owns the hotel now, which means he made a deal with the Devil, or for him, doesn't it?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 7:43 AM
There is a petition under way to force Cracker Barrel to change their name to "Caucasian Barrel", because the term "Cracker" is deemed to be racially offensive.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 7:50 AM
Question of the day: What does the hell holes of Detroit, Chicago, St. Louis, Memphis, East St. Louis all have in common......right, they are Americans cities in bad need of help.
What a day all the networks are showing live the taking down of the Confederate flag in S.C. What's next in the PC world.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 9:11 AM
Why are we required to hate the Swastika or the Rebel Flag and not the Rising Sun? It seems America's faux outrage is highly selective.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Jul 9, 2015, at 4:03 PM
You are not required to hate any flag.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 12:57 PM
"I have never flown the Confederate Flag, I do not own one to fly.... But if I did choose to fly it, do you feel you have the right to stop it?"
Theorist
I left a few questions for you last night, including this one.
"I have never flown the Confederate Flag, I do not own one to fly.... But if I did choose to fly it, do you feel you have the right to stop it?"
Thought I would have heard from you by now.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 2:07 PM
Wheels: Think Theorist went down to S.C. to help take down the Confederate flag. I have never owned a Rebel flag and didn't think much about it till the PC crowd got all hot over it.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 3:21 PM
Will someone use a gun to shoot a computer to death down there? :)
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 3:35 PM
"You are not required to hate any flag."
You haven't been following the news, or the comments here.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 6:43 PM
A few years ago, a restauranteur in India opened a restaurant called "Hitler's Cross", which was emblazoned with swastikas and other Nazi symbols. There was an outcry, mostly by people outside India posting online. They proclaimed that he should have realized that Hitler is the Most hated person in the World", which struck me as odd.
I have no idea how they polled that. Methinks it was like the designation of Linda Tripp as the "most hated woman in America", created out of thin air and repeated as if it were Gospel. Methinks "the World" includes a lot of people who, if they hate, reserve their hatred for others than Hitler.
Anyway, the end result was that the restauranteur changed the name of the place. I suggested he call it "Pol Pot's Pantry".
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 6:55 PM
The Democrat urge to ban something is strong, but it helps to know what it is you want to ban.
Democrats display incorrect Rebel flag while calling for its removal:
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 7:41 PM
House Democrats introduced legislation to ban the "confederate flag"?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 9:22 PM
"I have no idea how they polled that. Methinks it was like the designation of Linda Tripp as the "most hated woman in America", created out of thin air and repeated as if it were Gospel. Methinks "the World" includes a lot of people who, if they hate, reserve their hatred for others than Hitler."
Seems I remember a caller to a liberal radio talk show saying she wouldn't vote for a certain candidate for president because he looked like a child molester. Soon after the media made it headline news that he had yet to answer deny or confirm that he was a child molester.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 10:49 PM
"I would question your reasoning...I often question your reasoning."
Theorist
Only reason I would display any of those items would be because some air headed Leftist that is wasting valuable oxygen by breathing told me I couldn't.
Yes I know you question my reasoning, like you did when you were angry with me a couple of weeks ago whenI tried to tell you it was our bloated big government who failed on the job of keeping Dylan Roof from getting a gun.
I called it correctly while you were wrong on blaming the gun dealer.
Make more laws and hire more "White Collar WPA" in government and all it will do is run up the bill for the taxpayer.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 11:01 PM
Wheels, I reckon we should remind them when we were right. I read that link and had already forgot you told them so.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 11:16 PM
Only reason I would display any of those items would be because some air headed Leftist that is wasting valuable oxygen by breathing told me I couldn't.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 11:01 PM
So you would take time, spend the money, and fly a flag just because someone told you couldn't fly said flag?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 11:43 PM
Spaniard, Anyone that would buy a junky ugly truck to make a point would not see the expense of a flag that big a deal.
But sometimes making a point backfires. I knew a guy that had some really nice trees that he watered, trimmed and fertilized. He always kept that corner of his property mowed and trimmed the grass around those trees. One day he asked state boys not to rut up that area with their tractor mowers and quit skinning the tree trunks when there was no need to mow that area. Two days later the state cut down the trees since they were on SHD right of way.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:14 AM
"House Democrats introduced legislation to ban the "confederate flag"?"
Yes. That is what they are calling the flag they wish to ban at frderal cemeteries. Many Southern Soldiers are buried at those cemeteries, and their families often adorn them with CSA flags, though the "Rebel Flag", or battle standard, is often also flown over their graves.
Apparently, the Southern Flag is so taboo among Democrats these days, when debating it they had to create a seventeen-star mockery of the battle standard to display during the debate. Curious, to me, that Democrats ate so frightened of it now, given that it was their party that started hoisting it high in the 1950s and 1960s, adding it to state flags and flying it over state houses.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 7:55 AM
The Democrats have nothing to campaign on due to Pres. Pinky's lack of accomplishments so they have to drum up something like the Confederate flag to whip up their voter base.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:38 AM
"So you would take time, spend the money, and fly a flag just because someone told you couldn't fly said flag?"
In a word Ike....... yes.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:00 AM
Wheels, I reckon we should remind them when we were right. I read that link and had already forgot you told them so.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 11:16 PM
Old John
Now all I have to do is sit back and wait for Theorist to apologize for being so harsh with me. :-(
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:08 AM
Apparently, the Southern Flag is so taboo among Democrats these days, when debating it they had to create a seventeen-star mockery of the battle standard to display during the debate. Curious, to me, that Democrats ate so frightened of it now, given that it was their party that started hoisting it high in the 1950s and 1960s, adding it to state flags and flying it over state houses.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 7:55 AM
Taboo among Democrats, huh? Did you not see what happened in Republican dominated South Carolina this past week?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:09 AM
Posted by The Spaniard on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:09 AM
Spaniard: That was due to the "vocal minority" and the PC crowd.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:16 AM
The Democrat urge to ban something is strong, but it helps to know what it is you want to ban.
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Fri, Jul 10, 2015, at 9:22 PM
The urge to ban the flag was also strong among house republicans this past week.
Let's see: flag bans pass GOP dominated House of Representatives and GOP dominated South Carolina but Shap blames Democrats.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:16 AM
Spaniard: That was due to the "vocal minority" and the PC crowd.
-- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:16 AM
That makes no sense. Republican dominated legislatures have been the ones to vote for banning the flag on public property.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:18 AM
Posted by The Spaniard on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:18 AM
Spaniard: The S.C. legislatures didn't have a chance with the White House pressure and the pressure from the "vocal minority" and the PC crowd.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:28 AM
Semo471
I think we should start calling them the "Oral Minority".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:31 AM
Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:57 AM
Theorist: Read my 9:28 AM post as to the reason of the cave in by the Republicans....that is if your mind is open. Time to switch over to "Common" and the "Atheist" to help is your views.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:04 AM
Theorist: Do you even know what you are talking about and when you are talking about it....Miss Pinkett!
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:27 AM
Perhaps you should seek his advice...
This was NOT a big government issue. This is the FAULT of LOCAL, Small.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Theorist
Methinks Thee Doth Protest Too Much. And you are shouting again.
The bloated Federal Government administers the Background Check Program. They sat on this application for three days feeling something was amiss but took no action and literally approved the application by letting their time expire.
See the statement below from Rick's link.
You may shout and deny all you like, but from all appearances, your beloved bloated government suffered another failure.
"The purchase order was on hold for three days as the FBI examiner tried to figure out if it should be approved or rejected. Once that window closed without a clear answer, the gun dealer used its legal discretion to complete the transaction."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:28 AM
Perhaps you should seek his advice...
This was NOT a big government issue. This is the FAULT of LOCAL, Small.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:52 AM
Theorist
Methinks Thee Doth Protest Too Much. And you are shouting again.
The bloated Federal Government administers the Background Check Program. They sat on this application for three days feeling something was amiss but took no action and literally approved the application by letting their time expire.
See the statement below from Rick's link.
You may shout and deny all you like, but from all appearances, your beloved bloated government suffered another failure.
"The purchase order was on hold for three days as the FBI examiner tried to figure out if it should be approved or rejected. Once that window closed without a clear answer, the gun dealer used its legal discretion to complete the transaction."
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:28 AM
Wheels: Liberals pretend to have open minds but the opposite is true.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:31 AM
Seminky is talking about ????-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:15 AM
Miss Pinkett: Careful your anger is showing.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:34 AM
Semo471
Yes, and the far left wing of the party "Leftists" claim to be the "Moral Majority".... I say the "Oral Minority".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:37 AM
If it is a local issue , why the ban of Confederate flags nation wide ?
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:56 AM
You are still free to display all of the confederate flags you want. Or any flag for that matter.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:00 AM
Spaniard: The S.C. legislatures didn't have a chance with the White House pressure and the pressure from the "vocal minority" and the PC crowd.
-- Posted by semo471 on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:28 AM
So much for personal responsibility...
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:04 AM
"Why was there a question, Wheels...read the article again.
When in doubt, refuse or prolong the period :) Always err on the side of safety!"
Theorist
I did read the article. You are the one who needsto read it again.
The FBI received the permit application..... we agree so far.
The agent assigned to check the application sees a problem...... I think we agree so far.
He did not approve or reject the application.... still with me?
He sits on it for 3 days and let's his time elapse to prove or disappove, thereby allowing the gun to be sold. Why didn't he follow up, investigate...... Isn't that what the FBI does?
Whoever that clown is he failed to do his duty, he did not err on the side of caution.
There is 3 day waiting period for the government to reject an application. They failed and a killer legally purchased a firearm.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:12 AM
"You are still free to display all of the confederate flags you want."
And on top of that, why should anyone care whether you do or not?
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:16 AM
Saw a pickup yesterday with a large American Flag and a Don't Tread on Me Flag on the opposite side of the truck..... both proudly flapping in the breeze.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:26 AM
Not angry...embarrassed for you!Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:48 AM
Theorist: You can receive help for your anger by attending some anger management classes. BTW, I'm done nothing to be embarrassed about - just saying it like it is.
See where you woke up "Common" to add some comments, then guess you'll switch over to the Atheist.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:30 AM
Save your pity for yourself Miss Pinkett.
Now on to better things than trying to straighten out the Liberals on here. Have a great day and remember to calm down and breathe.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:56 AM
The key word here is "free" , the "still" part is being determined .
-- Posted by ▪Rick on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:11 AM
No its not. Right now, at this moment, you are SILL free to fly any flag you want. Let me know when this changes.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:05 PM
"Whoever that clown is he failed to do his duty, he did not err on the side of caution."
I do not disagree...I said he/she should have erred on the side of caution, which they did not.
This is an individual error, by the agent and by the reporting jurisdiction, not "big" government.
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 11:40 AM
Theorist, what you said was....
"Why was there a question, Wheels...read the article again.
When in doubt, refuse or prolong the period :) Always err on the side of safety!"
Not.......
"...I said he/she should have erred on the side of caution, which they did not."
I believe I heard you agreeing with Rick that a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. That link (the agent checking the application) broke and the chain (the Federal Government) failed!
If the FBI had any question regarding the eligibility of Dylan Roof's legal right to purchase a gun, the application either should have been turned down and he be asked to reapply with more information, or they should have thoroughly investigated. Thirty minutes worth of phone calls to local law enforcement could have satisfied their requirement to approve or disapprove.... instead the FBI sat on their collective *** and let the application be approved for a lack of action.
Don't try telling me and others here that this is the failure of one man. That is BS.
I know a man in St. Charles Mo with no record whatsoever who was turned down under this program after it wa first initiated because he had a similar name to an individual in Florida. He was required to clear that up with further provable information before the sale could be processed. That was a few years ago. How do I know this.... it was my son.
Like everything else it gets to be old hat and we need a cup of coffee or what the hell ever and let it sit and be approved by default.
A total failure of the system to perform in this case and how many more?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:23 PM
The only one at fault for killing those people is Dylan Roof. Full stop. The end.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:52 PM
"Taboo among Democrats, huh? Did you not see what happened in Republican dominated South Carolina this past week?"
The Republicans did not feel the need to fabricate a fake seventeen-star flag to make their point. Gov. Nikki Haley had a traditional battle standard in hand when she felt the need to display one.
Most of the calls for bans are originating from Democrat pens.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:54 PM
"I was wrong to insinuate the seller neglected the background check. I stand by the fact this has nothing to do with "big" government...someone made a mistake at the local level, then it is unclear to me, what difference it makes who reported the arrest, unless the examiner was unable to view the report."
According to the reports, the FBI failed to note his admission to possession of drugs, which would have disqualified him under federal law.
"Again, this would be a mistake at the local level, as it should have been documented and reported."
Not according to the news reports. It was duly reported but the FBI personnel failed to note the admission of guilt that was included in the report. So, apparently, did the news reporters.
"Shapley, however, said he should not have been unable to purchase the firearm...as he was not out on parole, or convicted of a felony."
And I stand by that claim. None of those factors wee at play here. What was at play was not identified in the news reports. I believe my statement was that, based on what is reported thus far, he was eligible for purchase. I stand by that, unless you can find something in the links provided to this point that say otherwise.
A background check was performed, using data provided by the FBI. The admission was not flagged by the FBI as disqualifying. The FBI failed, based on current reports, not the gun store.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:05 PM
"Remember when the state flag and the US flag were flying at half mast, but the confederacy flag flew full mast?"
Do you recall the reason for that? Vandals wete constantly stealing the Rebel Flag, so it was mounted on the pole without a lanyard. It could not be lowered to half-mast due to physical restraints.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:10 PM
The only one at fault for killing those people is Dylan Roof. Full stop. The end.
-- Posted by The Spaniard on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:52 PM
Of course Dylan Roof is responsible for the killing Ike. Who is disputing that. We were talking about how he got the gun and who failed in the permit process. Try keeping up.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:18 PM
"Under a Republican Governor, no less...
"This just does not compute in their conservative, closed minds..."
The failure would appear, once again, to be yours. The bills calling for the bans ate, by and large, originating from Democrat pens.
Also, I specifically referenced the proposed federal bill, which was proposed by two Democrats, one from Arizona and one from Missouri, and has not passed the Republican-led House. Ms. Pelosi has used procedural measures to attach it as an amendment to an appropriations bill, resulting in a shouting match when that move failed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:20 PM
It is a bit disingenuous to demand that that the graves of Confederate soldiers who fought under the Confefetate flag and against the Union flag, can only have union flags flying over their graves.
Methinks many mught choose to have their loved ones' graves moved from federal cemeteries to private or Stste-owned ones in response to such a move. It is insulting to their memory to deny that their memory be marked with the flag under which they fought and died.
Moving them, unfortunately, reopens not only graves but old wounds, which permitting their burial in federal cemeteries was meant to help heal. It also opens them up to vandalism from haters who feel some sort of vindication through the desectration of interred remains.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:26 PM
"I am talking about the lowering of the full mast flag...Shapley."
I addressed that. It was not physically possible at the time - due to restraints created by the response to vandalism. There was no lanyard.
"And the Governor of S.C. is a Republican."
And she has absolutely nothing to do with the debate on the floor of the US House, where the false flag was displayed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:29 PM
"What did the bans eat???"
"Are", Theorist. "Are." I have made note of my poor typing skills, particularly on this tablet, several times in the past. That is why I seldom chide others for theirs.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:32 PM
"And the Governor of S.C. is a Republican."
Are you suggesting I said otherwise? I know full well who she is.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:34 PM
Most of the calls for bans are originating from Democrat pens.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:54 PM
Not in South Carolina. And the Republican controlled US House also passed a ban of the flag on federal property.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:42 PM
Also, I specifically referenced the proposed federal bill, which was proposed by two Democrats, one from Arizona and one from Missouri, and has not passed the Republican-led House. Ms. Pelosi has used procedural measures to attach it as an amendment to an appropriations bill, resulting in a shouting match when that move failed.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:20 PM
The "ban" amendment passed the house. The Republican House of Representatives. The amendment to scrap said ban was pulled by House republicans.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:45 PM
The Republicans did not feel the need to fabricate a fake seventeen-star flag to make their point. Gov. Nikki Haley had a traditional battle standard in hand when she felt the need to display one.
Most of the calls for bans are originating from Democrat pens.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 12:54 tPM
Which has ZERO to do with the conservative state of SC voting overwhelmingly to remove the flag from state grounds...
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:47 PM
It could not be lowered to half-mast due to physical restraints.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:10 PM
And due to a South Carolina law.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:51 PM
Theorist are you not yet ready to admit our bloated big government failed in the screening of Dylan Roof's application for a permit to purchase a handgun?
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:55 PM
"Not in South Carolina. And the Republican controlled US House also passed a ban of the flag on federal property."
Actually, they were. Look up the original bills. The House Bill had no Republican Sponsors. The Senate Bill had few.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:57 PM
Shap can't accept that the conservative state legislature of South Carolina and its conservative republican governor are the reason that the "rebel flag" was taken down. Conservative republicans own the flag ban in South Carolina. There is no other way to spin it. But he will keep spinning.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 2:04 PM
GOP State Legislator to introduce bill banning "rebel flag" on state grounds...
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 2:09 PM
"Rep. Jared Huffman's (D-Calif.) amendment to the 2016 Interior Department spending bill seeks to end a policy that allows a temporary display of the flag in cemeteries under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. It sailed through on a voice vote after minimal discussion on the House floor that encountered no opposition."
No opposition from House Republicans. No way it passes without full GOP support...
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 2:14 PM
Actually, they were. Look up the original bills. The House Bill had no Republican Sponsors. The Senate Bill had few.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:57 PM
Still standing by this demonstrably false statement?
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 3:11 PM
The House Bill had no Republican Sponsors. The Senate Bill had few.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 1:57 PM
2 from the house, including the GOP member who introduced the bill. 10 from the Senate. Quit making **** up. I catch you every time.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 3:38 PM
Semo471
Yes, and the far left wing of the party "Leftists" claim to be the "Moral Majority".... I say the "Oral Minority".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 6:10 PM
Semo471
Yes, and the far left wing of the party "Leftists" claim to be the "Moral Majority".... I say the "Oral Minority".
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 6:10 PM
Wheels, Put together a couple of them named Bob and you have Oral Roberts.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 6:56 PM
This flag deal is representative of the way new liberals operate. Find something,a flag,a person,some 'thing',blame it all on that then pat themselves on the back.
How come so called progressives are always looking backward?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 7:20 PM
I just peeked in to see if Theorist had conceded that she was wrong about the failure of our bloated big government in the case of them issuing a permit to purchase a handgun to Dylan Roof by default since they failed to act upon the request in their allotted time.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 7:54 PM
This flag deal is representative of the way new liberals operate. Find something,a flag,a person,some 'thing',blame it all on that then pat themselves on the back.
How come so called progressives are always looking backward?
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 7:20 PM
Its been mostly conservative politicians that have taken action to remove the rebel flag from state property, not liberals. Unless you think the GOP dominated state of SC and the GOP dominated US House are really full of sleeper cells...
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:15 PM
Wow! For once Mr. Big Wheel is correct. There is no question that the "bloated big government" led directly to the killings in Charleston.
It is curious why the NRA, which pays for so many Congressmen, would allow an agency which influences gun ownership get so large.
Continuing with the astute analysis put forth by Mr. Big Wheel, it would make complete sense to drastically reduce the "bloated big government" by eliminating 50% of the positions in the FBI's "gun sale application review" branch. With the "bloat" eliminated, the remaining FBI staff could then perform accurate evaluations in 15 to 20 working days.
That should satisfy everyone...
No more "bloat." No more mistaken reviews. Fewer killings, Etc.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:18 PM
No matter who you blame or acclaim, I can't see where the representatives of the people are doing much representing past their own wheeling and dealing.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:23 PM
No matter who you blame or acclaim, I can't see where the representatives of the people are doing much representing past their own wheeling and dealing.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:23 PM
But you blamed liberals, who are largely powerless to affect change where the govt has banned the rebel flag on public land. Conservatives in SC and US House are responsible for the banning the flag on public grounds.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:27 PM
"It is curious why the NRA, which pays for so many Congressmen,...."
Common, do you stay up all night to come up with this crap?
Federal government rules and regulation are government by administration and that is what you defend. Might as well be by the government for the government.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:29 PM
Spaniard, I don't think I have put blame on democrats. You seem obsessed with blaming republicans. Not a whole lot of difference between them although on both sides are some that tend to be more conservative and most democrats have a history of following the liberal leaders.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:36 PM
Theorist, An old Van Johnson movie made the point as he played a Eastern senator torn between voting to build a defense plant on the coast adding jobs for his voters or voting to put it in a Midwestern state safer from enemy bombing.
This is not one of those scenarios.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:41 PM
Spanglish bit on my 7:20. Love it.
-- Posted by rocknroll on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:40 PM
poor wheels...
-- Posted by Theorist on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:29 PM
No, it's poor Theorist, she cannot admit she is wrong again. :-)
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 9:46 PM
Spaniard, I don't think I have put blame on democrats. You seem obsessed with blaming republicans. Not a whole lot of difference between them although on both sides are some that tend to be more conservative and most democrats have a history of following the liberal leaders.
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 8:36 PM
If you would follow the posts from the last day or so, you would see that Shapley made a number of demonstrably false statements in an attempt to blame Democrats for the public flag bans. You chimed in by blaming liberals. I was merely correcting the record. Enjoy your weekend. Its no longer raining.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:09 PM
You always dispute someone, but you never give any sources or evidence for your stance. But, don't stop. Laughter is good for the soul.
-- Posted by G. H. on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:34 PM
I posted a number of sources in this very thread which prove me correct. So now I am laughing at you because you're wrong again. It's funny.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 10:36 PM
." Conservative republicans own the flag ban in South Carolina. There is no other way to spin it. But he will keep spinning."
It is really quite simple, even you should be able to comprehend it: if you write a bill proposing to ban something, it is a fair statement to say that "you want to ban something". On the other hand, if you merely vote for a bill written by someone else which proposes to ban something, "want" does not necessarily become part of the equation.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 6:54 AM
"Rep. Jared Huffman's (D-Calif.) amendment ..."
And so you make my point. Jared Huffman (a Democrat) _wants_ the ban.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 6:55 AM
"Brannon said he plans to introduce his bill as early as he can, which won't be until December."
SB 897 By Sheheen (D), Malloy (D) , Coleman (D), McElveen (D), Kimpson (D), Nicholson (D), Massey (R), Campbell (R), Hembree (R) , Williams (D), Matthews (D), Hutto (D), Setzler (D), Sabb (D), L. Martin (R), Jackson (D), Davis (R), Lourie (D), Johnson (D), Reese (D), Thurmond (R) , Campsen (R), Rankin (R), Scott (D), Hayes (R), Bennett(R) , Allen (D) and Gregory (R).
I count that as overwhelmingly Democrat, though "few" was probably a poor choice of words.
H 4365, By King (D), Hart (D) , Gilliard (D), Henegan (D), M.S. McLeod
(D) and Mitchell (D)
Similar (S 0897, H 4366)
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 7:22 AM
A group of states separated from the government they saw as oppressive to form their own slavery-permissive form of government. We celebrate that move every Fourth of July.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 8:07 AM
It would be more accurate to say "...oppressive to form their own..." oppressive form of government.
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 8:51 AM
I told you Shap would spin his nonsense to absolve conservatives of their primary responsibility for the flag bans.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 9:39 AM
I told you Shap would spin his nonsense to absolve conservatives of their primary responsibility for the flag bans.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 9:39 AM
I told you Shap would spin his nonsense to absolve conservatives of their primary responsibility for the flag bans.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 9:39 AM
South Carolina House Bill 4366 with Republican sponsors. Introduced by a Republican in June, not december. Passed by a Republican Legislature. Signed into law by a Republican Governor:
H 4366 General Bill, By Brannon, Whipper, Clary, Gilliard, Kirby, Alexander, R.L. Brown, Henegan and Mack
Similar (S 0897, H 4365)
A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, TO ENACT THE "CLEMENTA C. PINCKNEY ACT OF 2015"; TO AMEND SECTION 1-10-10, RELATING TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG ON THE GROUNDS OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX, SO AS TO PROHIBIT THE PLACEMENT OF ANY CONFEDERATE FLAG ON THE GROUNDS OF THE CAPITOL COMPLEX, AND TO REMOVE THE CURRENT CONFEDERATE FLAG FLOWN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CONFEDERATE SOLDIER MONUMENT.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 9:48 AM
I agree Rick!
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 10:34 AM
And a white girl killed by a 5 time felon who was set free by the sheriff of a sanctuary city is not mentioned by the President or investigated by the DOJ because the agenda for the Liberals is to increase the voter block for the up coming Presidential election.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 11:00 AM
I said look at the "original " bills. Now, where I come from, the "original" bill would be the first one. In most of he known world, HB 4365 would precede HB 4366.
"I told you Shap would spin his nonsense to absolve conservatives of their primary responsibility for the flag bans."
Not really. I have not suggested they did not pass nor sign them. All I noted was that the Democrats have been the primary authors of the bans. You have yet to disprove that.
What you have done, however, is to deflect the discussion away from the ignorance of the House Democrats who used an erroneously-designed flag to bolster their argument. The question is: why? Are the so ashamed of the flag they can't pull them to display the real McCoy? Or are they so ignorant of the history of the flag they decry that the donot understand why it has thirteen stars rather than the seventeen they displayed?
If they can't get the design right, why should we trust the have their history and symbology correct?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 12:57 PM
"The US had little to do with ending Hitler's reign" - Spaniard
"Still standing by this demonstrably false statement?" -- Posted by The Spaniard on Sat, Jul 11, 2015, at 3:11 PM
You have no credibility here.
-- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 3:10 PM
"I told you Shap would spin his nonsense to absolve conservatives of their primary responsibility for the flag bans."
Not really. I have not suggested they did not pass nor sign them. All I noted was that the Democrats have been the primary authors of the bans. You have yet to disprove that.
What you have done, however, is to deflect the discussion away from the ignorance of the House Democrats who used an erroneously-designed flag to bolster their argument. The question is: why? Are the so ashamed of the flag they can't pull them to display the real McCoy? Or are they so ignorant of the history of the flag they decry that the donot understand why it has thirteen stars rather than the seventeen they displayed?
If they can't get the design right, why should we trust the have their history and symbology correct?
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Sun, Jul 12, 2015, at 12:57 PM
The spin continues. Face it, without conservative republicans, the stars and bars would still be flying over SC and Federal lands. That is not in dispute.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 7:12 PM
- Posted by The Spaniard on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 7:12 PM
Oh Lord, more of this nonsense..... Mommie must have left him out of his playpen and he crawled to the keyboard again.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 7:27 PM
Oh Lord, more of this nonsense..... Mommie must have left him out of his playpen and he crawled to the keyboard again.
-- Posted by Have Wheels Will Travel - ΑΩ on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 7:27 PM
At least I am not a welfare mooch.
-- Posted by Robespierre on Wed, Jul 15, 2015, at 7:35 PM
"...and they invented the flag."
Later they were better known as "dixiecrats."
But here's an interesting bit of trivia for RELee/Gabby...
Per Kathleen Parker, a South Carolina native...
"As I watched the broadcast of the Confederate battle flag being brought down from its post on the South Carolina Statehouse grounds Friday morning, my thoughts went to Gen. Robert E. Lee, who surely would have raised a toast to this new day.
"Yes, you read correctly.
"The renowned general who surrendered the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in 1865 was no fan of the flag after the war. Not only did he encourage his fellow Confederates to furl their flags, he didn't want any displayed at his funeral. None was."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 12:38 PM
"The renowned general who surrendered the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia in 1865 was no fan of the flag after the war. Not only did he encourage his fellow Confederates to furl their flags, he didn't want any displayed at his funeral. None was."
-- Posted by commonsensematters on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 12:38 PM
So what?
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 9:14 PM
Posted by ▪Rick on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 7:51 AM
Rick: IMO, the African American Monument has to be taken from the State House grounds and put in a museum. Liberals, 1-2-3- scream!
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 9:22 PM
I wasn't able to open common's opinion link but did take a few minutes [no serious research] to check some of my civil war history books. I can't find anything to back that up. Lee was a patriot, an honorable man with integrity, and did what he agreed to. Part of that was to tell his armies to lay down their flags and weapons and go home.
Not sure about the part of his funeral requests.
History I think is a constant rewrite.
Maybe common can share some more.
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 9:36 PM
It is a curious thing that, in the aftermath of the Chattanooga shootings, thete is a debate over whether or not we need to arm our armed forces.
Gun-free zones offer lawbreakers the equivalent of shooting fish in a bucket.
-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Fri, Jul 17, 2015, at 8:29 AM
Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 9:36 PM
OJ: Here is what I found of the funeral - no flags and no uniforms.
-- Posted by Truth Slinger on Fri, Jul 17, 2015, at 8:50 AM
-- Posted by Old John on Thu, Jul 16, 2015, at 9:36 PM
I've not done any serious research either, but from what I understand, Lee was hardly a vigorous champion of secession and the Confederacy. He was loyal to those who he said he would be loyal to, which included Virginia. (Please, correct me if I'm wrong).
Apparently the notion of Lee being opposed to displaying the flag come from a few letters he wrote. I haven't been able to find anything online with the full text of the letter.
-- Posted by MicCheck2 on Fri, Jul 17, 2015, at 8:54 AM
Menu
1-Appears that the old Confederate Flag that has flown above the state capitol grounds of SC is about to be removed
2-A St. Louis group called the Council of Conservative Citizens is under attack for posting stats about black on white crime to counter the claim that blacks are targeted by whites as the only problem. Apparently Dylan Roof googled "black on white crime" and up came the Council of Conservative Citizens web site and he used information from that site in his "manifesto". The Southern Poverty Law Center branded this group as a "hate group" in 1990.
A lunatic murderer kills 9 innocent people and the world must rush to kill symbols and facts to make everyone feel better.
Is it racist to post black on white crime statistics? Is the confederate flag racist?
Replies (877)