An honest discussion about Racism?

We know that. I also know that I can never know what it means to BE black. But I do know prejudice, bigotry, and racism when I see it.

I'm aware of the GI Bill. what's your excuse for not being able to get a college loan? If you're a service vet, you had that. You haven't answered that question.

Obama graduated magna cum laude (meaning "with great honor) from Harvard Law. They don't just hand that out at Harvard. Your contention is that he only got admitted to Occidental, Columbia and Harvard because of racial quota's. He's black, so it couldn't have possibly been because he was actually qualified on merit. So anytime a black gets admitted to a college it has to be because of filling racial quotas. That's an interesting position that you take. It fulfills your racist POV that he couldn't get there without stepping over people like yourself who were certainly more qualified. After all...he's black right?

 

He can pick that theme up when he's older and more capable of furthering those goals, which is exactly what he did. From April to October 1992, Obama directed Illinois's Project Vote, a voter registration campaign with ten staffers and seven hundred volunteer registrars; it achieved its goal of registering 150,000 of 400,000 unregistered African Americans in the state, leading Crain's Chicago Business to name Obama to its 1993 list of "40 under Forty" powers to be.

In 1993, he joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a 13-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004. His law license became inactive in 2007.

From 1994 to 2002, Obama served on the boards of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project; and of the Joyce Foundation. He served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1999.

What makes you think that the struggle for civil rights ended with the marches? When the CRA and VRA were passed a law went into effect. That doesn't meant that there weren't those more than willing to violate the law, and that meant that lawyers familiar with those laws and sympathetic to that cause would be needed to enforce those laws. That's called working for civil rights. Apparently you think that unless he marched across the Edmund Pettis Bridge and got his head bashed in by a bunch of conservative thugs, he couldn't have anything to do with the issue. For people like you, racism doesn't exist anymore, despite the fact that you practice it everyday.

 

Your judgmental attitude and opinions are both hypocritical and racist.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't know what the debate was about. Who even says Buckley is my guy?

 

So do you call yourself white or mixed? You're white when it's about your sister, but mixed when it isn't. Does your sister not share the same mixed racial background as you? If she's your half/sister, that might make sense. But that doesn't appear to be the case. You say that black kids beat up your sister because she was white, but she's mixed like you isn't she? For all we know she could have tossed out the "n" word and got her lily white ass kicked for doing it.

Who's Leroy Brown?

 

How?

My posts are long, because I answer all of your responses thoroughly.

The first part is true. The second is an opinion from a guy that thought that Buckley won the debate with Baldwin despite losing by 380 votes at the Cambridge Union. Cambridge is one of the top universities in the world. That's a pretty critical audience. So your opinion of the Obama voter isn't worth much.

 

And in your arrogance only you can see prejudice, bigotry and racism.

I am a vet not a retiree. I served 9 years 4 regular, 5 reserve. I have an honorable discharge. I was not eligible for the GI bill. Not everyone is. There was no GI bill offered when I was in. You had to save for your own, and I didn't because I only earned $800 per month. Your ignorance of how the system works is no basis for calling me a liar.

Well apparently they do just hand that out or they guy would release his transcripts or he's a phony and is lying about his record. Of course in your POV if you question Obama's record you are automatically a racist. Why don't you racists from the democrat party that has a long history of racism just admit you culpability and apologize for you racist past and stop trying to pawn it off on republicans and conservatives? The race card you are using has expired.

 

My sisters, plural were beaten. And the schools had regular race riots and the cops would come to break them up. I am darker than 4 of my siblings and one is darker than me. I call myself white. If a black has light skin should they have to call themselves white?

How hypocritical for you to say I can't question Obama's experience but you question mine.

 

Dude, why do you not understand that nobody is denying the history of racism in the Democratic Party? We are just pointing out that those racists were conservative democrats, not liberal democrats. That's the key. You can deny it all you want, but anyone who isn't in complete denial knows it to be true.

 

Well if you can't make your points briefly without plagiarizing five pages off of some lib website don't bother. I won't read them.

I said Buckley won the debate? No. I said Buckley's side argued in favor of Civil Rights. You just do not understand the basic premise being argued obviously.

 

And for the umpteenth time another lib tries to pawn off the racist history of the democrat party onto conservative republicans without a shred of evidence or proof.

 

You're right it's a flawed argument. It's YOURS. The syllogism points out the flaw in it. That's how logic works.

Syllogism:
major premise- All skaters are potheads.
minor premise- Damon is a skater.
conclusion- therefore, Damon is a pothead.

The conclusion is NOT a sound argument, because we haven't demonstrated the proof that all skaters are potheads.

Major premise - Obama wrote several books
minor premise - "People who have studied Ayers writing style and language believe that he wrote Obama's books."
conclusion - therefore, Ayres wrote Obama's books.

The conclusion is not a sound argument. The minor premise doesn't demonstrate the truth of it's claim.

That's the logical structure to your claim. You claim that Ayers wrote Obama's books. Demonstrate that truth of that claim. Obviously you can't. But you float that argument as if it's true. You're intellectually dishonest.

P1. Making claims that cannot be demonstrated as true, is intellectually dishonest.
P2. News is making a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true.
C: therefore, News is intellectually dishonest.

Modus Ponens;

If Patriot News makes a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true, Then he is being intellectually dishonest.
Patriot News is making a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true.
Therefore; Patriot News is intellectually dishonest.

a.Argument forms consisting of two premises and a conclusion are called syllogisms.
The first and second premises are called the major premise and the minor premise.
A very important and commonly used form of syllogism is called modus ponens, which is Latin for "method of affirming." It has this classic form:

p implies q ( If P then Q )
p
Therefore, q

It's called Affirming the Antecedent.

Affirming the Antecedent (Modus ponens)

Consider the argument:

If p, then q. If you play with fire, you will get burned.
p.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You played with fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore, q. Therefore, you got burned.

Any argument of this form is valid, because it merely unfolds what is implicit in the meaning of the hypothetical premise. That premise says that the truth of p would be sufficient for the truth of q. If we then assume that p is true, we may conclude that q is true as well.

If Patriot News makes a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true, Then he is being intellectually dishonest.
Patriot News is making a claim that cannot be demonstrated as true.
Therefore; Patriot News is intellectually dishonest.

If the premises are true, the conclusion MUST be true. That's how logic works. There are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:

1. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2. pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic

Some debate organizations have rules like the Code of the Debater from the University of Virginia which says among other things:

“I will research my topic and know what I am talking about.

“I will be honest about my arguments and evidence and those of others.

“I will be an advocate in life, siding with those in need and willing to speak truth to power.”

Intellectually dishonest. When one avoids an honest, deliberate and comprehensive approach to a matter because it may introduce an adverse effect on personally and professionally held views and beliefs.

Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
•the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
•the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
•the conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.

You claim that Ayers wrote Obama's books. And this is your argument: ""People who have studied Ayers writing style and language believe that he wrote Obama's books." - that amounts to this: •the advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position They may believe that to be the case, but belief does not = truth. You may also believe that there are Purple Unicorns on Venus, but that doesn't prove that there are.

I think we've established that you're intellectually dishonest by all definitions of that term.

 

What would qualify as something in your view? What are your own major accomplishments that we should use as examples? Herman Cain ran for president. What qualified him for that? Owning a Pizza Chain? Barack Obama was a State Senator, and a US Senator. He had as much experience as Lincoln had. Lincoln served in the Illinois legislature, then a two year term in the US House.

 

I'm not defending communists. I reject your premise that Obama is a communist, just as I rejected Alan West claiming there were 80 communists in congress. What I attack, are people making these absurd over the top claims which all come from TeaParty fanatics. You call them Patriots? I call them fanatics. My loyalty to America is not dependent on subscribing to ********* mentality. In fact, I view them as enemies of this country. Any group of people that would deliberately cost this country $24 Billion dollars and then risk our debt worthiness to promote their own agenda is extremely radical and doesn't serve the interests of this country. I don't accept extortion as a political tactic.

 

Follow the money. All you're doing is their bidding by kissing their backside. They own you, and they'd love to own the country. Unfortunately for them, the last election proved you couldn't buy the White House.

 

You're intellectually dishonest by all definitions of that term.

 

Obama ran for state senate, then immediately ran for US senate then immediately ran for president. He is qualified to campaign, but has no legislative experience because all he's ever done is campaign.

 

You avoided the first answer regarding Keyes. I can see why. It was a stupid question to begin with. Secondly, why would racism be left out of a thread that is about...racism. ( An honest discussion about Racism?)

Third, I've argued that conservatism and racism are the same thing in America. You have no rational or logical rebuttal.

 

Okay, you want to use offensive and bigoted remarks, that is up to you, I don't have to read it. You are blocked from here on out.

 

Wrong. Nobody is blaming Republicans for Democrats racist past. The blame is pointed at conservatism and that holds true for Democrats and Republicans. Your entire argument rests on faulty premises. You can only see the parties. You don't grasp the ideology. The parties had both liberals and conservatives. So casting blame at a party is a false argument. What you need to look at is the ideology that drives racism, and it ain't liberalism.

Again, you're lost. Nobody says that all Republicans are rich. They say that Republican policies favor the rich. Which they do. They sure don't work for the poor. They attack the poor.

 

You live a life of denial. That's what happens when everything you thought was true crumbles around you.

 

Found an interesting note here about the 64 Republican Platform.

This was in 1960. Conservatives are angered when GOP presidential nominee Richard Nixon strikes a deal with liberal leader Nelson Rockefeller. Nixon agrees to put all 14 of Rockefeller's demands in the party platform, including promises that the executive branch be totally reorganized and that Rockefeller's liberal policies on economic growth, medical care for the aged and civil rights be included. Led by Goldwater, conservatives vow to organize at the grass roots and take control of the GOP. It was in fact the liberal Nelson Rockefeller that demanded that support for the CRA be included. Goldwater was never in favor of that. He voted against the CRA.

Rockefeller achieved virtual total prohibition of discrimination in housing and places of public accommodation. He outlawed job discrimination based on gender or age; increased by nearly 50% the number of African Americans and Hispanics holding state jobs; appointed women to head the largest number of state agencies in state history; prohibited discrimination against women in education, employment, housing and credit applications; admitted the first women to the State Police; initiated affirmative action programs for women in state government; and backed New York's ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. He outlawed "block-busting" as a means of artificially depressing housing values and banned discrimination in the sale of all forms of insurance. Rocky was no conservative. But he was a Republican. Which points to the central problem in your argument. The parties were never the issue. The ideology has always been the question.

There were liberals and conservatives in both parties. Goldwater a conservative. Rocky a liberal. Both Republicans. Thurmond a Conservative. Humphrey a liberal. both Democrats. Both parties were ideologically divided. Not so much today.

There were no liberal Senators in the South. There still aren't. They're all products of the confederacy and they all remain true to those roots. So every time you talk about those racist Liberal Southern Senators, you're simply floating a lie. And you're being intellectually dishonest, because you know it's a lie.

In 64...June 19: Senator Everett Dirksen (R-IL) plays a key role in passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to end segregation, but Goldwater joins Southern Democrats in voting against it.

Presidential Election, 1964. Goldwater only won his home state of Arizona and five states in the Deep South.July 4: ( no surprise there) George Wallace gives a speech condemning the Civil Rights Act of 1964, claiming that it would threaten individual liberty, free enterprise and private property rights and that "The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., to figure out what to do with it.

July 13–16: Goldwater defeats liberal Republicans Rockefeller and Henry Cabot Lodge to win the GOP presidential nomination and launch a conservative crusade.
July 13–16: Under attack as an "extremist," Goldwater lashes back in his speech accepting the GOP nomination:"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"
November 3: In the presidential election, Goldwater is defeated in a landslide, and many GOP congressmen are defeated with him.
December: The American Conservative Union, the oldest conservative lobbying organization in the United States, is founded by William F. Buckley, Jr.

 

So republicans attack their constituents who are poor and vote for them?

Your argument rests on faulty premises because while I have proven democrats have a history up to present day of racism, you have yet to prove any such policies of conservatives that is racist. This is because you do not understand that racism isn't a political philosophy but belief in ones own racial superiority.

 

I believe he has taken his ball and gone home...

 

That of course is false. You obviously do not. Even you must know that the title of the Debate was Does the American dream come at the expense of the Negro. Do you think that these men would argue a different point? At Cambridge Union??? They would never get away with it. You stay on topic in a debate like that. Buckley is your guy because Buckley is the voice of conservatism and he argues against that premise, and you're a conservative. Buckley lost the argument by 380 votes.

 

So what? Millions also took advantage of the GI Bill's home loan guaranty. From 1944 to 1952, VA backed nearly 2.4 million home loans for World War II veterans. My father bought his first house using the GI Bill.
In 2008, the GI Bill was updated once again. The new law gives veterans with active duty service on, or after, Sept. 11 2001, enhanced educational benefits that cover more educational expenses, provide a living allowance, money for books and the ability to transfer unused educational benefits to spouses or children.

If you're a vet, you get the GI Bill.

Bull. You're a vet. You get it.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the G.I. Bill into law.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Statement on Signing the G.I. Bill
June 22, 1944

The GI Bill has been in effect since before you were born. In fact it's been updated as I showed.

That's total crap.

No. They don't just hand that out. Harvard has a pretty long reputation to uphold. Yours...not so much. Furthermore...you don't seem to understand that all students records are private matters and no university can or will release that to satisfy your paranoia. Student transcripts are only released on the request of the student himself. They don't simply open up those files to anybody that thinks they might have a right to see them. You don't, and Harvard isn't going to indulge you.

No. Not if it's a legitimate question. Yours aren't. I don't recall anybody asking for Romney's transcripts, or him volunteering them for our purposes. Face it, you just don't like the guy and prefer slandering him.

Every Democrat has repudiated the racist policies that infected their party. They rejected the racists which is why they left. And they aren't pawning anything off on Republicans. It's Conservatives that hold the racist views. Republicans do not = Conservative. At least they didn't when all this was happening. Rockefeller was a Republican and a champion of civil rights. But he was a Liberal. They used to infect the Democratic Party. Now they're Republicans. A man like Rockefeller couldn't exist in the Republican Party today.