Study: Cons are more racist than Libs

[libertarian_knight]

Remember, the best of the best, will get into school, get the job, get the loans, etc.

The Worst of the best and some of the best of the worst will fight it out, and generally AA effects them the most.

The Worst of the Worst lose out, as it should be.

AA is definately racist and sexist, and it's pretty close to being useless soon anyway.

The idiotic effects of racism and sexism are still pervasive, or at least pervasive enough to be effective.

Of course, a better solution would be to calculate the economic loss as a result of insitutionalize legal racial abuse, and they force every public official to serve time and pay restitution out of their own pockets. Of course, no public offical will foster such a plan. Then again, government is never about Justice anyway.

 

[Schweddy]

Let's calm it down on the 'negro' talk. Titles such as the United Negro College Fund have those names because of the time context. Its kept that way mostly for the same reason celebrities keep their last name when they get married, that is what people know it as and people may not recognize it if they changed the name. Therefore, using the term in the way you have has a bad connotation and makes you seem 'old-fashioned' to say the least.

Anyways, your comment about Lincoln actually explains why white racists tend to be Republican. They were very different parties back then, it was the Republican/GOP and the Southern Democrats (who were mostly racist). Around the time of civil rights Democrats began to lose popularity and began supporting black civil rights (there's more to it, but this is simplified). As a result many racists abandoned the democratic party and changed to the 'new' republican party (which tended not to support civil rights), therefore the new democratic party began to attract urban, black, and women voters because of their support for civil rights. So the parties flip-flopped.

Not to say that the Republican party is full of racists, but a generation ago, most racists were supporters of the Republican party, and it has made it less civil rights proned.

There were many more reasons why the parties seemed to have switched. Most of it has to do with taxes and big business, not really civil rights. Saying the majority or most are racist is like saying *all* Republicans or Conservatives are against abortion - not so.

Jessie Jackson and company likes to keep the idea that racisim is more alive than ever - it keeps money in their pockets else they will become irrelivant. America is finally wisening up about the ole Rev. A few still believe it is alive as ever though. That is ashame, it creates it more than it helps.

 

[MSgt]

There were many more reasons why the parties seemed to have switched. Most of it has to do with taxes and big business, not really civil rights. Saying the majority or most are racist is like saying *all* Republicans or Conservatives are against abortion - not so.

Jessie Jackson and company likes to keep the idea that racisim is more alive than ever - it keeps money in their pockets else they will become irrelivant. America is finally wisening up about the ole Rev. A few still believe it is alive as ever though. That is ashame, it creates it more than it helps.

It's merely a platform for votes. I believe it is fair thing to say seeing as how fast the Democratic Party jumped all over the "racial" aspect concerning Katrina. They swarmed in, got their votes secured, and jumped out.

 

[doughgirl]

Why did the Left attack.....

Justice Janice Brown, an African American woman?
Miguel Estrada?
Condi Rice?
Clarence Thomas?

These minority figures are all conservative. If liberals claim they are for advancing and supporting minority rights......why do they attack them?

Hannity illustrated this pattern on the December 7 edition of Hannity & Colmes, saying, "There is a level of liberal bigotry and bias against conservative minorities that needs to be dealt with in this country. ... With the way Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice is [sic] treated, Miguel Estrada, Janice Brown, Priscilla Owens [sic], there is institutionalized bias against minorities that are conservative." On November 26, right-wing pundit and author Michelle Malkin asserted that "underlying liberal bigotry" is responsible for "how liberal columnists and cartoonists are treating minority conservatives." When Democrats blocked controversial judicial nominee Miguel Estrada in 2003, MSNBC host and former Republican Representative Joe Scarborough observed that "a Hispanic comes up who's a conservative and the Democrats are blocking his nomination," asking: "Are the Democratic senators racist?" Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter labeled Democrats who questioned the qualifications of Thomas and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice as "racist."

Here is a compilation of racist statements made by prominent liberals:

~Ex-Klansman, Senator Robert Byrd used the term “white ******” on Tony Snow’s Fox News Sunday.

~During a speech, Democrat Lieutenant Governor, Cruz Bustamante, used the N–Word.

~Senator Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) told reporters on December 14, 1993, that he attended international summits
alongside “these potentates from down in Africa.” He continued, saying, “rather than eating each other, they’d
just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva.” Senator Hollings also held out for keeping the
confederate flag flying over the state capitol. In 1960 Hollings “warned today that South Carolina would not
permit ‘explosive’ manifestations in connection with Negro demands for lunch-counter services.”

~New York City Councilman Charles Barron told a crowd at the Millions for Reparations March in Washington D.
C. that he wished his goal of seeing blacks compensated for the enslavement of their ancestors was closer to
fruition. He said, “I want to go up to the closest white person and say:’You can’t understand this, it’s a black
thing’ and then slap him, just for my mental health.”

~Donna Brazil, Al Gore’s presidential campaign manager, called Republicans “white boys” who aim to “exclude,
denigrate and leave behind.” And, when the Washington Post asked Brazil what she would do for the Gore
campaign, her response was that she was there to ensure that the campaign and election did not fall into the
hands of “white boys.”

~ Senator Dodd (D-CT) made these remarks during a tribute to Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV): “It has often been
said that the man and the moment come together. I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend
from West Virginia that he would have been a great Senator at any moment. Some were right for the time. Robert
C. Byrd, in my view, would have been right at any time.” Tom Daschle (D-SD) defended Dodd’s comments, which
sounded an awful lot like the comments made by Senator Lott.

~Jesse Jackson, who misses few opportunities to expose racism in others, referred to New York City as
“hymietown.”

~Jackson’s buddy, Al Sharpton, was a central figure in fanning the 1991 Crown Heights race riot, where a mob
killed an innocent Jewish man. In addition to that, Sharpton also initiated a 1995 protest of a Jewish owned store
in Harlem where protesters used several anti-Semitic slurs.

~Bill Clinton was among three state officials in Arkansas, in 1989, who were sued under the federal Voting Rights
Act of 1965. “Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters
and candidates, and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks,” according to the Arkansas Gazette,
“The evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated.”

During Clinton’s 12-year tenure as Governor, he never approved a state civil rights law.

Bill Clinton admired Oral Eugene Faubus, whose claim to fame was trying to bar nine black children from
attending Little Rock’s Central High School in 1957. Clinton was also a friend of William Fulbright, a
segregationist who signed the Southern Manifesto, which denounced the Supreme Court’s Brown vs. Board of
Education decision. Clinton referred to Fulbright as “my mentor, a visionary, a humanitarian.”

~Democratic National Chairman, Terry McAuliffe used the term “colored people” in a speech soon after
becoming DNC chief. And I thought liberals were progressive.

~San Francisco Democrat, Mayor Willie Brown, after winning the 1995 election said, “The white boys got taken
fair and square.”

~Apparently Spike Lee has a problem with interracial couples as he has stated that, “I give interracial couples a
look. Daggers. They get uncomfortable when they see me on the street.”

~Dan Rather, having avoided covering a story on Condaleeza Rice, eventually did the story, saying that CBS
“got the Buckwheats,” suggesting that CBS was afraid not to cover the story because the other networks were
covering it.

~Andrew Cuomo found himself in an uncomfortable position when he said that voting for his rival for the New
York Democratic gubernatorial nomination, Carl McCall, who is black, would make for a “racial contract” between
black and Hispanic Democrats “and that can’t happen.” Cuomo eventually dropped out of the race for governor.

~Former Democratic Minority Leader in the U.S. House of Representatives, Dick Gephardt, gave several
speeches to a now defunct white supremacist organization called the Metro South Citizens Council. Gephardt
also asked the group for an endorsement of his candidacy.

~Regarding Clarence Thomas and Affirmative Action,Maureen Dowd insults Thomas’ accomplishments by
writing, “It makes him crazy that people think he is where he is because of his race, but he is where he is
because of his race.” Is Dowd saying that without Affirmative Action, blacks are incapable of accomplishing
anything great or is she saying that all whites are racist and therefore would never have given Thomas a chance?


It may be one thing for a conservative to point all of these things out, but there are some black Democrats who
have accused their own party of racism. Says Baltimore Democrat, Tony E. Fulton, “They really don’t care about
us. We are used every four years, then thrown back.” Black conservatives have been pointing that out for years.


Dereck E. Davis, of Prince George, Maryland, is chairman of the Economic Matters Committee. According to
Davis, “The state party is racist to the core.” And Nathaniel T. Oaks, a Baltimore Democratic Delegate,
remarked, “I think the Democratic Party takes black people for granted.”

The above are all fairly recent incidents, but racism in the Democratic Party stems back to prior to the Civil War.
The Republican party was created in response to a growing number of Americans who were against slavery.
Thomas Jefferson, and others with the same philosophy, that slavery was a “positive good,” founded the
Democratic Party.

Following the war, Democrats continued to fight against equal rights for blacks, eventually defeating
Reconstruction and implementing Jim Crow. During the 1920s, Republicans repeatedly called for anti-lynching
legislature that was opposed by Democrats.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt did his part to continue the trend of Democratic racism. In addition to the Japanese
Internment situation, Roosevelt is also responsible for appointing two notorious segregationists to the U.S.
Supreme Court - Jimmy Byrnes and Hugo Black.

Hugo Black, a former Democrat Senator from Alabama had a long history of hate group activism. He was a
member of the Ku Klux Klan and became famous for defending Klansmen under prosecution for racial murders.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 got more support from Republicans than from Democrats. Republican Senate
Minority Leader, Everett Dirksen, pushed the bill through the Senate despite 21 no-votes from Democrats,
including Al Gore’s father and, of course, Robert Byrd. Only 4 Republicans opposed the bill.

Democratic opposition to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 split the party in two. Forty percent of the House
Democrats voted against the Civil Rights Act. At the same time, 80% of Republicans supported it. Republican
support in the Senate was even higher.

So, the next time a liberal brags about their record on race issues, you know what to say.

http://www.blackconservative.net/PFRacLib.html

So there ya go...................

 

[LeftyHenry]

It's merely a platform for votes. I believe it is fair thing to say seeing as how fast the Democratic Party jumped all over the "racial" aspect concerning Katrina. They swarmed in, got their votes secured, and jumped out.

they had votes in New Orleans before. That was Lousiana's DNC stronghold. I love how you make the DNC seem like a power obsessing party when the RNC holds all branches of power and have invaded a oil rich nation on the basis of a lie and on taxpayers expense. Go right ahead and ignore your own party

BTW the thing that really pissed off alot of people about Katrina was that he flew right over New Orleans on his way back from his ranch. Did he stop to offer encouragement or aid? Of course not.

 

[LeftyHenry]

Why did the Left attack.....

Justice Janice Brown, an African American woman?
Miguel Estrada?
Condi Rice?
Clarence Thomas?

These minority figures are all conservative. If liberals claim they are for advancing and supporting minority rights......why do they attack them?

Hannity illustrated this pattern on the December 7 edition of Hannity & Colmes, saying, "There is a level of liberal bigotry and bias against conservative minorities that needs to be dealt with in this country. ... With the way Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice is [sic] treated, Miguel Estrada, Janice Brown, Priscilla Owens [sic], there is institutionalized bias against minorities that are conservative." On November 26, right-wing pundit and author Michelle Malkin asserted that "underlying liberal bigotry" is responsible for "how liberal columnists and cartoonists are treating minority conservatives." When Democrats blocked controversial judicial nominee Miguel Estrada in 2003, MSNBC host and former Republican Representative Joe Scarborough observed that "a Hispanic comes up who's a conservative and the Democrats are blocking his nomination," asking: "Are the Democratic senators racist?" Right-wing pundit Ann Coulter labeled Democrats who questioned the qualifications of Thomas and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice as "racist."



So there ya go...................

This is great....

blackconservative.net (which reps about 2% of the black voters) and Sean Hannity. The most unbiased sorces right why not find the source alldemocratsareracist.com

 

[doughgirl]

“blackconservative.net (which reps about 2% of the black voters) and Sean Hannity. The most unbiased sources right why not find the source alldemocratsareracist.com”

My information is factual and accurate. Hannity has every right to say what he wants based on what he has investigated. I suppose you think Michael Moore is unbiased and accurate in what he says and reports? How about the “left” like…..Peter Jennings was he biased? Is Al Franken biased? Dan Rather? Bryant Gumbel? Walter Cronkite?

Everyone on earth has a bias. Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, Democrats, scientists, politicians, schoolteachers, newscasters, actors, CNN, FOX, ABC, NBC, The Washington Post, The New York Times, even our Supreme Court Justices have biases…...



Say could you site the source that says, blackconservative.net represents 2% of black voters.

 

[RightinNYC]

The public has finally figured out al sharpton and realized that he is a negative, not a positive.

Because of Rev. Al Sharpton's endorsement of Ferrer, 7 percent of voters are more likely to vote for the Democrat, while 29 percent are less likely and 61 percent say the endorsement will not affect their vote.

 

[HTColeman]

There were many more reasons why the parties seemed to have switched. Most of it has to do with taxes and big business, not really civil rights. Saying the majority or most are racist is like saying *all* Republicans or Conservatives are against abortion - not so.

Jessie Jackson and company likes to keep the idea that racisim is more alive than ever - it keeps money in their pockets else they will become irrelivant. America is finally wisening up about the ole Rev. A few still believe it is alive as ever though. That is ashame, it creates it more than it helps.

Oh, I know there are more reasons, and not to say that either party is racist. Just saying that a white racist is most likely going to be a republican, a republican cannot be assumed racist by any means. I will agree that Jessie Jackson and Mr. Al Sharpton (call him a reverend if you want) overplay and exaggerate racism. I don't agree with them, but I don't completely blame them, they were so used to outright racism, that it became an ingrained part of their lives. So, they continue to live in it. My grandparents and somewhat my parents are the same way. You don't just get over growing up like that, you become guarded.

 

[HTColeman]

It's merely a platform for votes. I believe it is fair thing to say seeing as how fast the Democratic Party jumped all over the "racial" aspect concerning Katrina. They swarmed in, got their votes secured, and jumped out.

Isn't that what politics is, or rather has become? Support something just to get votes?

 

[Gardener]

There are elements of racism at either end of the political spectrum, though the language is different and so are the typical targets. The left has blinders when it comes to the bigotry against Jewish people coming from the far left, and folks in congress like Cynthia McKinney can express virulently antisemitic notions without anybody so much as blinking an eye. Our universities are at the vanguard for this hate, with Georgetown hosting a vile collection of antisemites just this last weekend -- people who chanted "death to Jews" a couple of years ago at a similar event. The left is also blinded by the notion that minorities somehow get a free pass when it comes to their own expression of bigotry.

The right is equally guilty, for glossing over the inuendo and code speak that permeates racist language these days. The language may have adapted to the reactions against it and so has become less overt, but it is still present. The reaction to Trent Lott was perfectly justified.

A whole bunch of partisan fingerpointing serves little real purpose, for what is gained if people only look to others and not themselves? It's not a highschool football game, and instead of viewing racism based on who said it and the target group in question, why not simply ask how you would feel if you were the terget? It must be pretty tiresome for Jewish people to hear they ar the source for all the world's ills from the idiot branch of the left and it must be tiresome for African Americans to hear people recalling segregation fondly.

I don't know -- if people want to talk about racism, then why not try something that shows a little understanding and deal with it as an issue rather than some exercise in partisan marking of territoriality? "Why, MY group can't be racist.......". Seems to me that if more people on the left confronted the racism coming from the left and more people on the right confronted the racism coming from the right, then maybe we could all get a handle on this thing.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Gardener
There are elements of racism at either end of the political spectrum, though the language is different and so are the typical targets. The left has blinders when it comes to the bigotry against Jewish people coming from the far left, and folks in congress like Cynthia McKinney can express virulently antisemitic notions without anybody so much as blinking an eye. Our universities are at the vanguard for this hate, with Georgetown hosting a vile collection of antisemites just this last weekend -- people who chanted "death to Jews" a couple of years ago at a similar event. The left is also blinded by the notion that minorities somehow get a free pass when it comes to their own expression of bigotry.

The right is equally guilty, for glossing over the inuendo and code speak that permeates racist language these days. The language may have adapted to the reactions against it and so has become less overt, but it is still present. The reaction to Trent Lott was perfectly justified.

A whole bunch of partisan fingerpointing serves little real purpose, for what is gained if people only look to others and not themselves? It's not a highschool football game, and instead of viewing racism based on who said it and the target group in question, why not simply ask how you would feel if you were the terget? It must be pretty tiresome for Jewish people to hear they ar the source for all the world's ills from the idiot branch of the left and it must be tiresome for African Americans to hear people recalling segregation fondly.

I don't know -- if people want to talk about racism, then why not try something that shows a little understanding and deal with it as an issue rather than some exercise in partisan marking of territoriality? "Why, MY group can't be racist.......". Seems to me that if more people on the left confronted the racism coming from the left and more people on the right confronted the racism coming from the right, then maybe we could all get a handle on this thing.

Can you give me some examples? I'm pretty far left and I don't have a racist bone in my body. And I don't hate Jews. But I do think the right exhibits more hatred and intolerance of others that do not share there view of society.

You don't here people on the left speaking as much in those generalizations many neo's love to spew out like "you liberals", "the dems" or "the left". But I do agree it not all on just one side. I cringe everytime I hear some whacko lefty start talking about how the Adminstration caused 9/11. Or that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. Or that we dynamited Building #7. We lose all credibility when some start talking that crap.

 

[debate_junkie]

Can you give me some examples? I'm pretty far left and I don't have a racist bone in my body. And I don't hate Jews. But I do think the right exhibits more hatred and intolerance of others that do not share there view of society.

You don't here people on the left speaking as much in those generalizations many neo's love to spew out like "you liberals", "the dems" or "the left". But I do agree it not all on just one side. I cringe everytime I hear some whacko lefty start talking about how the Adminstration caused 9/11. Or that there was no plane that hit the Pentagon. Or that we dynamited Building #7. We lose all credibility when some start talking that crap.

I think it's pretty clear that Jesse Jackson, a well known Democratic supporter, has shown his racist colors time and time again. Any time there is an injustice upon which the race card can be played for his fellow African-Americans, he is first in line to do so.

Was it not Kanye West who was quoted on national tv as saying George Bush hates black people?

And if I remember correctly, weren't the leaders of the NAACP running the "racist" card because George Bush, as president chose not to address them at one of their meetings?

It is evident that SOME Democrats can and will be JUST as racist as SOME Republicans. What I don't get is why so many people (in America, and on this board) will not look at the twig hanging from their own eyes, but instead choose to look at the speck in someone else's, especially if they belong to the opposite party.

 

[SixStringHero]

Add Obama and Mayor Nagin to that list as well.

It's ridiculous to say that there are no racist Democrats.
There is racism in both parties and ideologies.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by debate_junkie
I think it's pretty clear that Jesse Jackson, a well known Democratic supporter, has shown his racist colors time and time again. Any time there is an injustice upon which the race card can be played for his fellow African-Americans, he is first in line to do so.

Was it not Kanye West who was quoted on national tv as saying George Bush hates black people?

And if I remember correctly, weren't the leaders of the NAACP running the "racist" card because George Bush, as president chose not to address them at one of their meetings?

It is evident that SOME Democrats can and will be JUST as racist as SOME Republicans. What I don't get is why so many people (in America, and on this board) will not look at the twig hanging from their own eyes, but instead choose to look at the speck in someone else's, especially if they belong to the opposite party.

Jackson can be right on the money at times, but others, I think he gets a little too carried away and makes a mountain out of a mole hill. Your right about Kanye. I also don't think Bush is a racist. Neither does Nelson Mandella. After he met with Bush, he said he was an "arrogant asshole". Which is exactly what I think of him too. I don't know how arrogance now comes with the territory of being an American. But it sucks.

 

[debate_junkie]

Jackson can be right on the money at times, but others, I think he gets a little too carried away and makes a mountain out of a mole hill. Your right about Kanye. I also don't think Bush is a racist. Neither does Nelson Mandella. After he met with Bush, he said he was an "arrogant asshole". Which is exactly what I think of him too. I don't know how arrogance now comes with the territory of being an American. But it sucks.

To equate arrogance to being an American is quite a generalization there, don't ya think? Isn't that like saying... hmm Con's are more racist than Libs? or Democrats are like Ted Kennedy?

Arrogance is a personality trait.. and as we all know in this country.. some possess it, some don't. George Bush's perceived arrogance doesn't mean that the citizens of this country possess it as well, correct?

I'm pretty far left and I don't have a racist bone in my body.

You don't here people on the left speaking as much in those generalizations many neo's love to spew out like "you liberals", "the dems" or "the left".

Just thought I'd refresh your memory there, Billo. I'm not one to umm split hairs, but I think you just broke your cardinal argument about not hearing the left speaking in generalizations. :2wave:

 

[KCConservative]

Good point. Remember, New Orleans is going to be chocolate again someday.

 

[talloulou]

Yeah I put this study right up there with the other newest gem "low fat diets don't help your heart."

So go ahead liberals eat tons of pizza, donuts, and potatoe chips smiling and feeling secure in the knowledge that studies show you to be superior to those pesky racist conservatives ...:mrgreen:

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by debate_junkie
Just thought I'd refresh your memory there, Billo. I'm not one to umm split hairs, but I think you just broke your cardinal argument about not hearing the left speaking in generalizations

How is that? How many times have you heard a liberal say "all you conservatives are just..." or "neocon's will always say..." or "you Bush lovers..."

I know those things have been said by those on the left. But my point was not a generalization when I said "many" on the right do this. How about this generalization "as soon as Iraqis can protect themselves from the head-choppers, we'll leave". As if all the things wrong in Iraq was because of them. As if we were protecting them now. We can't even protect our own troops, how can we possibly protect Iraqi citizens. Here's another generalization that is quite common, "just another Bush hating lie". Like that is all it is. For no reason I decided to hate Bush, then go make some noise about it. Forget the fact that there are multiple corrobating stories from different un-related sources that are all speaking the same thing, that America is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, due to our Iraqi aggression.

Now here's the part where our collective arrogance kicks in, your going to react like many people and go, "What! Are you nuts? Not us. Were the good guys."

 

[KCConservative]

potatoe chips

................................... :shock: Dan, is that you?

 

[talloulou]

................................... :shock: Dan, is that you?

No I'm not Dan? Who is that, someone with a similar spelling problem??

 

[LeftyHenry]

No I'm not Dan? Who is that, someone with a similar spelling problem??

Dan Quayle, Bush sr.'s VP who spelled potato w/ an E at the end.

 

[talloulou]

Dan Quayle, Bush sr.'s VP who spelled potato w/ an E at the end.

Oh I should have got that. Good insult I must admit:monkey

 

[debate_junkie]

How is that? How many times have you heard a liberal say "all you conservatives are just..." or "neocon's will always say..." or "you Bush lovers..."

I know those things have been said by those on the left. But my point was not a generalization when I said "many" on the right do this. How about this generalization "as soon as Iraqis can protect themselves from the head-choppers, we'll leave". As if all the things wrong in Iraq was because of them. As if we were protecting them now. We can't even protect our own troops, how can we possibly protect Iraqi citizens. Here's another generalization that is quite common, "just another Bush hating lie". Like that is all it is. For no reason I decided to hate Bush, then go make some noise about it. Forget the fact that there are multiple corrobating stories from different un-related sources that are all speaking the same thing, that America is guilty of Crimes Against Humanity, due to our Iraqi aggression.

Now here's the part where our collective arrogance kicks in, your going to react like many people and go, "What! Are you nuts? Not us. Were the good guys."

Quite a few times actually, Billo, but then again, it's much easier to get inflamed when a member of the opposite party does it, all the while glossing over a likeminded person in the political arena.

The generalization I was referring to, was your comment regarding Nelson Mandella thinking George Bush to be an arrogant asshole, and then you said you didn't know how arrogance came with the territory of being American, which IS a sweeping generalization. Arrogance doesn't come with the territory. Arrogance is a character trait that SOME possess.

Anyway, regardless, alot of people use generalizations, and don't even realize they do so. But to say one does it more than the other, or one is more racist because of it than the other is ludicrous, bordering on downright childish. THAT'S my point.

 

[Synch]

Impossible, look at affirmative action.

Conservatives want the college admissions to be race blind... so that no racism can exist, but it is the liberals who are patronizing Hispanics and Blacks, no to mention AA discriminates against a small minority, asians.:doh

Liberals are racist are conservative whites and asians.. while are degradingly racist against blacks and hispanics.

America has crime against humanity? We saved humanity quite a few times, and did good to the world much more than the bad..

You're thinking of the Japanese.

It's actually a way of saying we're sorry for all those years that crackers in pickup trucks from your part of the country whiped and enslaved them. When the slaves were emancipated, they had nothing. They started off in a disadvantage. They were poor, uneducated, and didn't know how to survive in the Capitalist American society they were brought up in. So, they continued what they had done all there lives: work on a plantation. Since they were still poor and couldn't afford the type of education that whites were recieving. they were forced to pass this life on to their kids. thus they stay in the hole that was generously dug for them. For years after that, even if they were able to succeed, they were put down by Jim Crow laws and lynchings. Now people realized how what we did was so horrible they try to make it up with AA, then they are called racists by the cons.

It's not saying we're sorry, but saying you can't be good enough so we have to help you.

AA only benefit blacks that have been successful in the past, the ones living in poverty aren't going to benefit from AA, hell they won't even go to college..


http://opr.princeton.edu/faculty/tje/espenshadessqptii.pdf

Asian applicants are the biggest winners if race is no longer considered in
admissions. Nearly four out of every five places in the admitted class not
taken by African-American and Hispanic students would be filled by Asians.
We noted earlier that Asian candidates are at a disadvantage in admission
compared to their white, African-American, and Hispanic counterparts.
Removing this disadvantage at the same time preferences for African Americans
and Hispanics are eliminated results in a significant gain in the acceptance
rate for Asian students—from 17.6 percent to 23.4 percent. Asians,
who comprised 29.5 percent of total applicants in 1997, would make up
31.5 percent of accepted students in the simulation, compared with an
actual proportion of 23.7 percent. Other aspects of admitted students, including
the distribution of SAT scores and, especially, the proportions of
students who are athletes or legacies, are hardly affected by affirmative action.

Show me one asian slaveholder in the US... ever, in history..

Why are we discriminating against a minority three times as small as the black population, underrepresented in the Fortune 500, and a group that has suffered discrimination throughout history? Why are you screwing asians far worse than whites?

And to bring back libertarians arguement, why is AA still existing when all the slavers and segregation already gone? Since they're dead, it doesn't matter any more. :roll: