Black students ejected from Trump Rally in GA...

[tres borrachos]

It's not a misspelling. That's his actual family name. His father or grandfather changed it to "Trump," but his real family name was Drumpf. It's like making fun of Hitler, who's family name was Schicklgruber. Oh, look, another similarity that Trump and Hitler have!

They both originally had lame ass names that their parents changed! No wonder Drumpf had a copy of Mein Kampf on his night stand. They have so much in common.



I'm just going to quote Lee Atwater, an old chief GOP strategist and former head of the RNC, on this:

"You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' --that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, "forced busing," "states' rights," and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites."​

In other words, all Republicans do is talk in coded language. So when they say:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending the best. They're not sending you, they're sending people that have lots of problems and they're bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists... And some, I assume, are good people."​

Which doesn't even need a translator, you know that they're peddling racism.

Trump's grandfather changed his name in the 1890s, not his father. He Anglicized the name when he emigrated to the United States. You apparently have no idea how common that was.

 

[Zyphlin]

I don't know why people jumped to the conclusion that I thought it was racism...


....I think it was racism

FIFY. That about sums up your post. A post that blatantly ignored the vast majority of things people actually put forth showing that what happened here is not unusual at a Trump rally, REGARDLESS of race, to instead just go "They're black so it had to be because of that".

Also, suggesting that there's zero evidence it was based on the color of their skin, and suggesting that there's nothing legally wrong with Trump doing that, doesn't mean that someone think's it's "right" or "correct" or "good" that he did it.

 

[Zyphlin]

Trump's grandfather changed his name in the 1890s, not his father. He Anglicized the name when he emigrated to the United States. You apparently have no idea how common that was.

If we're using the same logic used with Hussein...those using Drumpf are clearly racist towards German people and wants to make people think that Trump is a Nazi.

In reality, like the Hussein people, those doing Drumpf just wants to act childish in hopes of angering and pissing people off and because it allows them to snigger and think how "clever" (ie childish) they are with the rest of the people in their echobubble.

 

[tres borrachos]

If we're using the same logic used with Hussein...those using Drumpf are clearly racist towards German people and wants to make people think that Trump is a Nazi.

In reality, like the Hussein people, those doing Drumpf just wants to act childish in hopes of angering and pissing people off and because it allows them to snigger and think how "clever" (ie childish) they are with the rest of the people in their echobubble.

Interesting parallel and I never thought of that. How many people called Obama "Hussein" to attempt to make him out to be one of those evil Muslims. And when that happened, many on the left went berserk. Now they are somehow attempting to make Trump (who I detest) a Nazi and a fraud because his grandfather Anglicized the family name 50 years before Donald was even born.

I've seen this Drumpf thing a lot on here. It's always coming from the most far left posters who lack critical thinking skills.

 

[Grant]

It's not a misspelling. That's his actual family name. His father or grandfather changed it to "Trump," but his real family name was Drumpf. It's like making fun of Hitler, who's family name was Schicklgruber. Oh, look, another similarity that Trump and Hitler have!

If he had his name legally changed it is no longer his real name. It might well be his grandfather's real name but his grandfather isn't not running for election. Strangely, his grandfather's last name does appear to be an election issue for leftists. And the Hitler reference??

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I do. I've seen the behavior of Trump supporters countless times now and they are consistently that irrational.

it begs the question.... why were no other black people thrown out at trumps rally then?

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I've read the bulk of this thread with great interest and great sadness.

The interest is how quickly most posters jumped to the conclusion that I called Donald Trump a racist, concluded that the students were kicked out because they were protesters or believed that Donald Trump was well within his rights to act preemptively against these students because another group (presumably of Black students) were disruptive at a previous rally and presumed that this group would likewise be disruptive.

The sadness is in how so many posters firmly believe that it's okay for attendees at this or any other campaign rally to be tossed out before any disruptive act is committed. Moreover, it's sadder still when language like the following is used and no one who were quick to chastise others for pulling the race card don't call it out:



I started this thread with a simple purpose in mind: To see if people could be honest with themselves and others about what's really happening at many of these campaign rallies hosted by Donald Trump. And from the responses, it would appear most people cannot. Instead, in this seemingly innocent mixed tale of finger pointing between paid security, local police and Secret Service agents most posters were quick to come to Donald Trump's defense. Granted, it's his rally and he has every right to allow anyone he sees fit to attend or remain in attendance. What's been lost in all this, however, is by most accounts including that of at least one student who was among the group, the students didn't say or do anything prior to being kicked out. Per this student's direct accounting, "They didn’t have signs. They didn’t chant or jeer. They weren’t physical or threatening. They weren’t performing a sit-in or being disruptive in any way". Moreover, "Not a single attendee or Trump staffer there has claimed the ousted students did anything other than show up..."

Now, to be fair there are several different accounts describing the student's stated purpose for attending the rally. USAToday.com claimed that "The young people said they had planned to sit in silent protest." But this article by the TIMES.com provides a different story.



And then there's this accounting from the DailyNews.com (editted for content):



And so, I asked what I believe to be a fair question: "Why were these students kicked out? Were they truly a disruption or was it because they were all Black people dressed in Black attire, a simply show of unity, with genuine curiosity for a political candidate and a willingness to learn where the GOP candidate stood on the issues that might have been of some interest/concerned to them?

(Continued...)

So wait, they weren't protestors but by thier own admission:

They all wore black to silently protest.

Black students ejected from Trump rally in Ga.


:26 seconds "we came today all wearing black to make a statement


and:

"The young people said they had planned to sit in silent protest,"

"“What I resent is now some of these folks are going around saying it was a black issue. That’s total nonsense,” he said. “I personally asked why were these folks told to leave and the reason was: they were being disruptive. The Trump staff said they were using profanity. The F-bomb is one word that was used. You can’t be in there using profanity. That violates Georgia law.”"

that's from the police chief.


Note Clinton did a similar thing.

College students removed from Trump, Clinton rallies may file... | www.wsbtv.com


But let me guess "that's different"....

 

[Cardinal]

it begs the question.... why were no other black people thrown out at trumps rally then?

That's irrelevant. You're arguing that because it's not official policy to throw out black people then none of the attendees were crazy enough to throw black people out just for being black, an argument that follows no internal logic. When an article writes that multiple people at a Trump rally were crazy enough to do this, I ask myself, "Are Trump supporters crazy, bigoted and retarded enough to do that based on my experience thus far?" And my answer is, "Seeing as these are the same people who nod thoughtfully at the suggestions that terrorists' families should be killed, Muslims should be barred from the country, a lot more than waterboarding should be brought back, Mexicans are rapists, eleven million people should be deported at once and that vaccines cause autism, then yes, abso-positively are they crazy enough to throw black people out just for being black." In fact, in that entire list of Trump beliefs I just rattled out, throwing out a bunch of black people just for being black is practically "dog bites man" levels of predictability for them.

 

[polgara]

Trump's grandfather changed his name in the 1890s, not his father. He Anglicized the name when he emigrated to the United States. You apparently have no idea how common that was.

Good morning, tres borrachos. :2wave:

My paternal grandfather had his name arbitrarily changed by the people who ran things at Ellis Island in the early 20th century. Why? Because he was from Eastern Europe and his last name had 12 letters! They used the first five letters and that became our legal family name in America. My cousins were not so lucky, and I remember them complaining in grade school that when they took tests and had to print their name it started on the line allotted, but then went drooping down the right hand side of the paper! :mrgreen: My uncle later got it legally changed, but two of my aunts never married, and proudly kept the original name all their lives. I have an unusual family, but I loved them all! :yes:

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

That's irrelevant. You're arguing that because it's not official policy to throw out black people then none of the attendees were crazy enough to throw black people out just for being black, an argument that follows no internal logic. When an article writes that multiple people at a Trump rally were crazy enough to do this, I ask myself, "Are Trump supporters crazy, bigoted and retarded enough to do that based on my experience thus far?" And my answer is, "Seeing as these are the same people who nod thoughtfully at the suggestions that terrorists' families should be killed, Muslims should be barred from the country, a lot more than waterboarding should be brought back, Mexicans are rapists, eleven million people should be deported at once and that vaccines cause autism, then yes, abso-positively are they crazy enough to throw black people out just for being black." In fact, in that entire list of Trump beliefs I just rattled out, throwing out a bunch of black people just for being black is practically "dog bites man" levels of predictability for them.

But the article doesn't say that and you ignore the police chief, you ignore one of the protesters themselves to arrive at the conclusion you want. meanwhile Hillary did similar but no one is saying **** about it.

 

[ThaiBoxer]

No I'm fairly sure it's because they don't promise them entitlements based on their minority status which Caucasians in the same age, marital, dependent, and income categories are not entitled to.

You know Hispanics are caucasians too right?

 

[starcitizen]

That's irrelevant. You're arguing that because it's not official policy to throw out black people then none of the attendees were crazy enough to throw black people out just for being black, an argument that follows no internal logic. When an article writes that multiple people at a Trump rally were crazy enough to do this, I ask myself, "Are Trump supporters crazy, bigoted and retarded enough to do that based on my experience thus far?" And my answer is, "Seeing as these are the same people who nod thoughtfully at the suggestions that terrorists' families should be killed, Muslims should be barred from the country, a lot more than waterboarding should be brought back, Mexicans are rapists, eleven million people should be deported at once and that vaccines cause autism, then yes, abso-positively are they crazy enough to throw black people out just for being black." In fact, in that entire list of Trump beliefs I just rattled out, throwing out a bunch of black people just for being black is practically "dog bites man" levels of predictability for them.

Everything you just said is ****ing irrelevant to this thread, in fact this thread is ****ing irrelevant I'll say it again they admitted they were protesting, not one of you ****ing people has yet to respond to that very simple fact, aaaaannnnd you're done!

 

[starcitizen]

You know Hispanics are caucasians too right?

You do know that for the purpose of minority entitlement allocation they are listed as white Hispanic and granted assistance which non-Hispanic whites are not right? You do know that the category of Mexican is now added to the list of recognized ethnicities right? Oh you didn't? ****ing shocker!

 

[Cardinal]

Everything you just said is ****ing irrelevant to this thread, in fact this thread is ****ing irrelevant I'll say it again they admitted they were protesting, not one of you ****ing people has yet to respond to that very simple fact, aaaaannnnd you're done!

No one actually expects a Trump supporter to admit that anybody was thrown out just for being black. But when black people are so called "silently protesting" and bear the sole brunt of anybody there, and when you consider the blatant, obvious bigotry of the supporters that Trump attracts, it doesn't require a degree in rocket surgery to see what happened.

 

[labrador]

By their own admission they were protesting you people are ****ing done, next.

sorry, you lost me .... please clarify ...

 

[FieldTheorist]

If he had his name legally changed it is no longer his real name. It might well be his grandfather's real name but his grandfather isn't not running for election. Strangely, his grandfather's last name does appear to be an election issue for leftists. And the Hitler reference??

Trump's grandfather changed his name in the 1890s, not his father. He Anglicized the name when he emigrated to the United States. You apparently have no idea how common that was.

I never said it wasn't, I'm just amused. Let's keep in mind that Drumpf attacked people before for being "cowards" who couldn't "accept their background."

It's just another amusing example of Drumpf being a wild hypocrite.

And here it is in context:

Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

Questioner: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."[10][11]

Umm, and that makes coded racism not racism anymore because it's abstract?

What Drumpf said wasn't even coded all that well.

 

[Objective Voice]

So wait, they weren't protestors but by thier own admission:

They all wore black to silently protest.

Black students ejected from Trump rally in Ga.


:26 seconds "we came today all wearing black to make a statement


and:

"The young people said they had planned to sit in silent protest,"

"“What I resent is now some of these folks are going around saying it was a black issue. That’s total nonsense,” he said. “I personally asked why were these folks told to leave and the reason was: they were being disruptive. The Trump staff said they were using profanity. The F-bomb is one word that was used. You can’t be in there using profanity. That violates Georgia law.”"

that's from the police chief.


Note Clinton did a similar thing.

College students removed from Trump, Clinton rallies may file... | www.wsbtv.com


But let me guess "that's different"....

I know what the USAToday article claims the students intended to do, as well as, what Valdosta Police Chief Brian Childress claims the students said. However, I've also provided you with quotes not only from the USAToday article - the OP information source - but two other media sources that provide conflicting views of what occurred, what was said (or wasn't said) and what the students state were their intentions for attending the rally. Not even the two young female college students who were interviewed claimed that they were their to protest despite the ackowledgement by the second girl interviewed that they (the group of student who were kicked out) decided to wear matching outfits to "make a statement with their attire". What statement would that be? She didn't say, but if I were to harbor a guess I'd say it was to show unity as a group of Black students attending a Trump rally where it seems every other minority comes under some form of attack on a college campus that happens to be historically all-white as if to say, i.e., "Hey, we are here!" By that you could say they were daring Trump to kick them out. And he did. But as has already been stated, whatever their unstated purpose, the story that will inevitably be told is "a group of 30 Black students were kicked out of a Trump Rally at historically All-White University" without ever doing a thing except by their account they just showing up.

But like as also been said which I agree with in principle it might be his right to put anyone or any group out of his rallies who he or his security detail believes is or might become a disruption, but he takes a big risk on taking such preemptive measures as a form of crowd control.

 

[tres borrachos]

I never said it wasn't, I'm just amused. Let's keep in mind that Drumpf attacked people before for being "cowards" who couldn't "accept their background."

It's just another amusing example of Drumpf being a wild hypocrite.



Umm, and that makes coded racism not racism anymore because it's abstract?

What Drumpf said wasn't even coded all that well.

Can you show me where Trump was being hypocritical and when he denied and rejected his background, please?

 

[Objective Voice]

I never said it wasn't, I'm just amused. Let's keep in mind that Drumpf attacked people before for being "cowards" who couldn't "accept their background."

It's just another amusing example of Drumpf being a wild hypocrite.

What's really hypercritical of him is to declare and end to political correctness where people get to say what's on their minds, yet he kicks people out of his rallies who want to exercise free speech. Say what you will about the Constitution not applying at such privately funded functions, but last I read the Constitution and the opinions on free speech the only limitation was in yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room.

Umm, and that makes coded racism not racism anymore because it's abstract?

What Drumpf said wasn't even coded all that well.

True, but the racial quotient becomes so lost in the abstract that people don't see it as racism. Instead, they see it as political ideology that eventually gets turned into a social legal norm. But isn't that how it's always been? To keep one race of people down all you have to do is make the social contract a legal one?

Case and point: You emancipate the slaves, but you don't afford them their due civil rights by enacting Black Codes. You remove the obvious Black Codes from the books and replace them with city ordinances. And when the secret gets out...???..."wash, rinse, repeat". But you never say the N-word. You just keep it all in the abstract so that it takes a generation or two before anyone figures out what you're really up to or determines just how effective the oppressive tactics worked.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

I know what the USAToday article claims the students intended to do, as well as, what Valdosta Police Chief Brian Childress claims the students said. However, I've also provided you with quotes not only from the USAToday article - the OP information source - but also two other media sources that provide conflicting views of what occurred, what was said (or wasn't said) and what the students state were their intentions for attending the rally. Not even the two young female college students who were interviewed claimed that they were their to protest despite the ackowledgement by the second girl interviewed that they (the group of student who were kicked out) decided to wear matching outfits to "make a statement with their attire". What statement would that be? She didn't say, but if I were to harbor a guess I'd say it was to show unity as a group of Black students attending a Trump rally where it seems every other minority comes under some form of attack on a college campus that happens to be historically all-white as if to say, i.e., "Hey, we are here!" By that you could say they were daring Trump to kick them out. And he did. But as has already been said, whatever their unstated purpose the story that will inevitably be told is "a group of 30 Black students were kicked out of a Trump Rally at historically All-White University" without ever doing a thing except by their account just showing up.

But like I've said it might be his right to put anyone or any group out of his rallies who he or his security detail believes is or might become a disruption, but he takes a big risk on taking such preemptive measures as a form of crowd control.

given the history of BLM disrupting protests at sanders, trump, hillary's rallys, what would you do if you saw a group all dressed the same like that of any color?


making a "statement" is a protest, which makes one "protesters".

 

[Absentglare]

What's really hypercritical of him is to declare and end to political correctness where people get to say what's on their minds, yet he kicks people out of his rallies who want to exercise free speech. Say what you will about the Constitution not applying at such privately funded functions, but last I read the Constitution and the opinions on free speech the only limitation was in yelling "FIRE" in a crowded room.



True, but the racial quotient becomes so lost in the abstract that people don't see it as racism. Instead, they see it as political ideology that eventually gets turned into a social legal norm. But isn't that how it's always been? To keep one race of people down all you have to do is make the social contract a legal one?

Case and point: You emancipate the slaves, but you don't afford them their due civil rights by enacting Black Codes. You remove the obvious Black Codes from the books and replace them with city ordinances. And when the secret gets out...???..."wash, rinse, repeat". But you never say the N-word. You just keep it all in the abstract so that it takes a generation or two before anyone figures out what you're really up to or determines just how effective the oppressive tactics worked.

Well, we deplore the subjugation of black people because they didn't choose to be black.

Republicans seem to welcome the subjugation of poor people, preferring to blame their status as poor on their personal decisions. It certainly doesn't hurt them to consider that there are a lot of poor people are minorities, and those minorities experience noticeably different initial conditions than those of whites.

 

[gdgyva]

another in a LONG line of threads, where posters have made a mountain out of a molehill

anything and everything to attack the GOP frontrunner

it seems every other thread is something or another negative about Trump

seems like some people are acting mighty scared

 

[Objective Voice]

given the history of BLM disrupting protests at sanders, trump, hillary's rallys, what would you do if you saw a group all dressed the same like that of any color?


making a "statement" is a protest, which makes one "protesters".

But neither Donald Trump nor his security team knew that beforehand. As I said, it's easy to see these people/students come in and all sit together wearing the same color clothing and all you see is a sea of black in the upper deck. But in so viewing, that's not a disturbance as much as it might be a distraction for the cameras. Moreover, if they didn't say anything, didn't do anything, didn't raise any signs, posters or banners, what harm were they causing?

It's very easy to act preemptively and assume that just because one group acted inappropriately that so will another group. I would submit that is a reasonable assumption considering that our law enforcement, for example, profiles all the time. One group behaves badly and the moment you see another group that looks similar the natural tendency is to assume that they, too, will do the same thing. This is why I've stated that in principle I can agree with Donald Trump's immediate assessment. However, in practice this won't do anything but hurt him especially on the heels of fumbling the CNN KKK inquiry and subsequent response.

He has every right to have anyone in attendance at any of his campaign rallies, but to act preemptively without provocation shows poor judgement and bad leadership for a man who seeks to be the leader of the free world and of a nation that holds a great multitude of people of different backgrounds, different races, different ideals. Some may think his actions were reasonable and rational and that he acted to prevent potential disruption, but what he's demonstrating is "if you're not like me/us, you don't belong here". Whether true or not, that's what the nation and the world sees. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. His actions, though his right to do, will paint him as a racist at worse and a bigot at best.

 

[ReverendHellh0und]

But neither Donald Trump nor his security team knew that beforehand. As I said, it's easy to see these people/students come in and all sit together wearing the same color clothing and all you see is a sea of black in the upper deck. But in so viewing, that's not a disturbance as much as it might be a distraction for the cameras. Moreover, if they didn't say anything, didn't do anything, didn't raise any signs, posters or banners, what harm were they causing?

Trump and his security team say they had no part of it and were unaware of it.

The police chief said they were being disruptive and shouting and cursing which is why they were ejected.

It's very easy to act preemptively and assume that just because one group acted inappropriately that so will another group. I would submit that is a reasonable assumption considering that our law enforcement, for example, profiles all the time. One group behaves badly and the moment you see another group that looks similar the natural tendency is to assume that they, too, will do the same thing. This is why I've stated that in principle I can agree with Donald Trump's immediate assessment. However, in practice this won't do anything but hurt him especially on the heels of fumbling the CNN KKK inquiry and subsequent response.

it's just more media gotcha garbage, trump disavowed duke over and over again, only when cnn finallly got him to stumble did that become an isssue. people aren't falling for the media **** anymore. In this case there is actually no evidence that trump was involved and the reports of a group of protestors, admitted protestors being disruptive is of no use to the already decided.

It's not going to hurt trump. what I keep telling you folks is this kind of **** helps him.

He has every right to have anyone in attendance at any of his campaign rallies, but to act preemptively without provocation shows poor judgement and bad leadership for a man who seeks to be the leader of the free world and of a nation that holds a great multitude of people of different backgrounds, different races, different ideals. Some may think his actions were reasonable and rational and that he acted to prevent potential disruption, but what he's demonstrating is "if you're not like me/us, you don't belong here". Whether true or not, that's what the nation and the world sees. And that's the point I'm trying to make here. His actions, though his right to do, will paint him as a racist at worse and a bigot at best.

again, Trump and his staff said they had no knowledge of the incident. And the problem with all this is, is sanders, and hillary both have had to eject BLM protesters, why is no one saying anything about that?

it's dumb gotcha bs.

 

[Objective Voice]

Well, we deplore the subjugation of black people because they didn't choose to be black.

Republicans seem to welcome the subjugation of poor people, preferring to blame their status as poor on their personal decisions. It certainly doesn't hurt them to consider that there are a lot of poor people are minorities, and those minorities experience noticeably different initial conditions than those of whites.

There are two saying that I believe are relevant here:

1. The more you know, the more you grow.

2. When you know better, you do better.

I could go with a third, "Knowledge is power", but that's not true. Such knowledge is only power if you know something others do not and can use said knowledge to your advantage. Therefore, I'd prefer "Knowledge turns to wisdom, and wisdom when aptly applied can be profitable to a wise man".

That said, people who are poor will always be taken advantage of. Why?

1. They have nowhere else to go and little recourse to defend themselves against those who seek to prey upon them.

OR

2. They tend to create their own downfall by striving to keep up with or take away from those who have what they can't obtain for themselves.

OR

3. They don't know how to change their current circumstances.

Which leads me back to #1 and #2 of the first set.

It wasn't always the Republican Party who subjugated poor people but then pointed the finger at them and declared they were the reason for their own downfall. That use to be the Democrat Party - and in some ways it still is. But here's the rub and the great mystery as to why minorities now tend to vote as a block for Democrats than for Republicans: survival and problem solving.

You see, during the age of Lincoln, the Republican Party did the Negro one helluva solid by emancipating the slaves. But they failed in one regard: They didn't seek to educate the Black man nor did the Party seek to put forward any means whereby the freed slave could see employment beyond the plantation. They expected that such things would occur naturally. But it didn't nor could it. Fast-forward to present day and many White people still fail to realize that despite the "government handout" in the form of social entitlements, it's only been FIFTY-ONE YEARS since Blacks have officially been consider full members of American society. What White men have learned for multiple generations, Black men (the African-American community as a whole) are just now beginning to learn for themselves: to fully embrace reading for knowledge and wisdom, not merely for the simple pleasure; to study philosophy and finance, to be imaginative, creative and innovative; to pursue wealth attainment instead of instant gratification; to see community as a benefit to us all both as a people and as a part of the greater social construct than just "our neighborhoods or 'the 'hood'"

When you know better, you do better. The more you know, the more you grow.

It's why I've often said to many of my White friends and White people in this forum, "instead of putting Black people down, take one by the hand and be a mentor. Teach him your ways". For this IS the truth of true conservatism. Unfortunately, what this thread has proven more than anything else is it's easier to point fingers, condemn, criticize and pass judgment than it is to put on blinders and lend a helping hand.