Is Bush A Racist?

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Here are some major issues:
Affirmative action
Religious tolerance
Gay Rights

Well, let's look at those issues.

Affirmative action: Republicans believe in equal opportunity for all races and sexes. Democrats believe in continuing set-aside/quota programs for women and minorites.

Religious tolerance: Republicans advocate freedom of religion. Democrats advocate freedom from religion.

Gay rights: Republicans advocate equal rights for gays, insofar that homosexuality is a choice. Republicans do not advocate marriage based on a choice one makes on who they want to have sex with. Democrats favor special rights for homosexuals based on that choice.

 

[LoneVoice]

In every one of those issues, there is an oppressive majority.

And on the other side, there is an oppressed minority.


If you look at those issues, the oppressed minority have a general opinion.

Affirmative action: what does it take to alleviate the racial gaps and resolve many race related issues?

Religious tolerance: Ensuring that other religion's are respected, along with the majority Christianity religion.

Gay rights: Allowing individuals to manage their own responsibilities with regards to how they choose their lifestyle and their life partner.


One may not always agree with the opinions of the oppressed minority, but the main thing is to at least take the time to understand and relate to their frustration with the oppression.


That's probably not quite said perfectly, but it at least gets the point across.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
In every one of those issues, there is an oppressive majority.

And on the other side, there is an oppressed minority.

If you look at those issues, the oppressed minority have a general opinion.

Affirmative action: what does it take to alleviate the racial gaps and resolve many race related issues?

Religious tolerance: Ensuring that other religion's are respected, along with the majority Christianity religion.

Gay rights: Allowing individuals to manage their own responsibilities with regards to how they choose their lifestyle and their life partner.


One may not always agree with the opinions of the oppressed minority, but the main thing is to at least take the time to understand and relate to their frustration with the oppression.


That's probably not quite said perfectly, but it at least gets the point across.

The oppressed minority, huh?

Affirmative action is no way to "resolve many race-related issues." In practice, affirmative action tends to highlight racial strife, not diminish it.

No Republican I know is against the practice of ree religion - Christian or not. Your argument has no basis in reality.

And the Republican Party does not believe in criminalizing homosexuality (not that it matters any more - SCOTUS has stricken all sodomy laws form the book, so it is a moot point). No Republican is going to advocate disallowing men to choose another man as a life partner. But conservatives - and most moderates, according to polls - draw the line at marriage. Again, homosexuals have the right to marry people from the opposite sex, just like anyone else. Choosing to participate in certain sexual behavior should not allow you special rights.

 

[shergald]

In all cases, Republicans want to abridge rights and/or deny equal rights.

Affirmative action: The point of this concept is to attempt to undo some of the damage done, for example, by two hundred years of slavery and denying education to Blacks by law, and another hundred years of Jim Crow with substandard education and deprivation of equal opportunity.

Gay rights: There is no reasonable justification for not permitting gays to marry if they wish. The Christian right sees it as unGodly and the Republicans think foolishly that it will undermine the concept of marriage. How? If marriage is such an unstable institution, then maybe couples should act in ways that will strength it. Being against gay marriage will not help a bad marriage.

Religious intolerance is just another form of bigotry that the Republican party has thrived on. There is no justification for it at all in a democracy that was instituted on the basis of separation of church and state.

Good reply LoneVoice.

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by shergald

Gay rights: There is no reasonable justification for not permitting gays to marry if they wish. The Christian right sees it as unGodly and the Republicans think foolishly that it will undermine the concept of marriage. How? If marriage is such an unstable institution, then maybe couples should act in ways that will strength it. Being against gay marriage will not help a bad marriage.

Translation: I have conducted no research on the opposing side of the issue, so I'll claim there must be no reasonable justification.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by dmp
Translation: I have conducted no research on the opposing side of the issue, so I'll claim there must be no reasonable justification.

Do you know what? That would be the perfect exercise in understanding the opposing side's issue.

You conduct research on the opposing side, and post their point of view on the matter. The opposition side will tell you if it accurately reflects the opinion.

Then the opposition side does the same.


Rules: You can't be stingy in your comments - you must be generous without using sarcasm, belittling, or backhanded compliments.


Oh wait... that would require compassion and understanding.... Therefore that wouldn't work!

Let's just go back to bickering and arguing and not listening... That'd be more appropriate.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by shergald
In all cases, Republicans want to abridge rights and/or deny equal rights.

Affirmative action: The point of this concept is to attempt to undo some of the damage done, for example, by two hundred years of slavery and denying education to Blacks by law, and another hundred years of Jim Crow with substandard education and deprivation of equal opportunity.

Gay rights: There is no reasonable justification for not permitting gays to marry if they wish. The Christian right sees it as unGodly and the Republicans think foolishly that it will undermine the concept of marriage. How? If marriage is such an unstable institution, then maybe couples should act in ways that will strength it. Being against gay marriage will not help a bad marriage.

Religious intolerance is just another form of bigotry that the Republican party has thrived on. There is no justification for it at all in a democracy that was instituted on the basis of separation of church and state.

Good reply LoneVoice.

Affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination against whites. This is just as wrong as discrimination against blacks, Indians, or whoever else. Discrimination is wrong; therefore, affirmative action is wrong.
Gay marriage: you obviously didn't read my response. Homosexual behavior is a choice. Gay marriage affords special rights on a certain group of people who choose to engage in that behavior. It is therefore a special right, and not in line with the American ideals of equality.
And please cite the "religious intolerance" that is apparently so indicative of the GOP.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by gop_jeff

The oppressed minority, huh?

Affirmative action is no way to "resolve many race-related issues." In practice, affirmative action tends to highlight racial strife, not diminish it.

From its original conception affirmative action was exactly about resolving many race related issues. It succeeded in providing many avenues for advancement for minorities (toward equality), that would not have occured as successfully without affirmative action.


No Republican I know is against the practice of any religion - Christian or not. Your argument has no basis in reality.

And the Republican Party does not believe in criminalizing homosexuality (not that it matters any more - SCOTUS has stricken all sodomy laws form the book, so it is a moot point). No Republican is going to advocate disallowing men to choose another man as a life partner. But conservatives - and most moderates, according to polls - draw the line at marriage. Again, homosexuals have the right to marry people from the opposite sex, just like anyone else. Choosing to participate in certain sexual behavior should not allow you special rights.

The arguments against gay rights is 100% founded on Christian based religions, which shapes the acts as immorral. OK, so let me ask you this. Would you disallow gays to choose their life partner, and gain all of the legal rights of "marriage", as long as they call the union some other name, other than "marriage"?


Besides that, which party led the arguments for sodomy laws in the first place?

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
Do you know what? That would be the perfect exercise in understanding the opposing side's issue.

You conduct research on the opposing side, and post their point of view on the matter. The opposition side will tell you if it accurately reflects the opinion.

Then the opposition side does the same.


Rules: You can't be stingy in your comments - you must be generous without using sarcasm, belittling, or backhanded compliments.


Oh wait... that would require compassion and understanding.... Therefore that wouldn't work!

Let's just go back to bickering and arguing and not listening... That'd be more appropriate.

I know it for SURE. I know for sure that nobody on EITHER side who has put a modicum of resource into learning the merrits of both options declares there are NO logical, sound, justifications for either argument. There are some good arguments FOR Homosexuals being allowed to marry...but the arguments AGAINST are stronger in my mind.

EVERYONE who has done NO research always claims, when asked "How do YOU know??"

:-/

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Affirmative action is nothing more than discrimination against whites. This is just as wrong as discrimination against blacks, Indians, or whoever else. Discrimination is wrong; therefore, affirmative action is wrong.
Gay marriage: you obviously didn't read my response. Homosexual behavior is a choice. Gay marriage affords special rights on a certain group of people who choose to engage in that behavior. It is therefore a special right, and not in line with the American ideals of equality.
And please cite the "religious intolerance" that is apparently so indicative of the GOP.

If you only look at the small picture, then I agree with you... affirmative action is discrimination against white and is wrong.

But, if you look at the big picture, there is a racial divide that has occured as a result of racially oriented historical issues within America (slavery, Jim Crow, discrimination). As a result of that racial history, whites have an inherent advantage in present day's society. Affirmative action is used to provide opportunities for minorities to counter that inherent racial advantage. In time, when those racially oriented advantages completely disappear, then affirmative action will no longer be needed.

There are many issues where Republicans fight to maintain Christianity in schools. But if you ever suggest including other religions (i.e. Muslim philosophy) in school, watch how quickly those Republicans turn.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by dmp
I know it for SURE. I know for sure that nobody on EITHER side who has put a modicum of resource into learning the merrits of both options declares there are NO logical, sound, justifications for either argument. There are some good arguments FOR Homosexuals being allowed to marry...but the arguments AGAINST are stronger in my mind.

EVERYONE who has done NO research always claims, when asked "How do YOU know??"

:-/

The argument that I hear most strongly on your side is that you want to protect the sanctity of the word "marriage". I can understand wanting to have a distinction between that word (marriage) as opposed to whatever word (other than marriage) gays would like to choose to use (hypothetically lets say civil unions). As long as their civil unions provide them all the same legal rights as "marriage" (i.e. inheritance, deathbed decisions, ...).

That would maintain the alleged sanctity of the word "marriage". While allowing gay rights as well. Nobody gets harmed.

 

[Avatar4321]

Affirmative action: what does it take to alleviate the racial gaps and resolve many race related issues?

Thats not tough at all. Just teach people that race doesnt matter. Encourage Culural assimiliation into the unique American culture and judge people by their character and not the color of their skin like MLK taught and not Afirmative Action, which is just another word for segregation.

Religious tolerance: Ensuring that other religion's are respected, along with the majority Christianity religion.

Key here is respecting the religion of the majority as well. it would be nice if the left did this. Republicans fight for the right of all religious groups to have their beliefs respected. But then this really doesnt have anything to do with racism. But it does involve the majority being oppressed by the minority.

Gay rights: Allowing individuals to manage their own responsibilities with regards to how they choose their lifestyle and their life partner.

Again this doesnt really have to do with Racism either. A majority of people disagree with homosexuality. So why on earth should we change the deffinition and purpose of marriage for people who knew both before they chose their lifestyle? Marriage has a purpose. to procreate and raise children in a stable unit. That is why we have legal status for marriage, because its the best way to raise children. No one gets married saying. "why dont you and i get married so we can oppress them homos over there." They get married because they want to start creating a family. Something thats impossible for the same sex community to do because they cant create anything together. Thats not how we were created. Gays are no more oppressed for being unable to marry then mammals are oppressed by birds for not being able grow feathers.

And to get back to the topic of the thread. The original poster made some serious accusations against President Reagan and President Bush. Id like to see him back up the racists charges.

 

[William Joyce]

George W. Bush isn't smart or principled enough to be a racist.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by Avatar4321 ]

Thats not tough at all. Just teach people that race doesnt matter. Encourage Culural assimiliation into the unique American culture and judge people by their character and not the color of their skin like MLK taught and not Afirmative Action, which is just another word for segregation.

The principle of that is exactly true. We all should judge by character and by color. In reality, you have to face the facts that often doesn't happen in the real world. Affirmative action is only a remedy when those judements fail. The degree to which it fails in today's time has been reduced when compared to the degree to which it failed 40 years ago. The point is, there is still a racial divide. Affirmative action helps to reduce it. Eliminating affirmative action would only serve to increase the racial divide.

Key here is respecting the religion of the majority as well. it would be nice if the left did this. Republicans fight for the right of all religious groups to have their beliefs respected. But then this really doesnt have anything to do with racism. But it does involve the majority being oppressed by the minority.[\b]
Agreed. We should respect the rights of the majority religion as well. In real life, in order to respect all religions, that would require removing the dominant religion from places where other religions aren't given the same respect.

For example, the 10 commandments from courts or public schools. In order to respect all religions equally, you'd have to make a choice to allow all religious paraphenalia in courts or public schools, or else remove all religious paraphenalia from all courts and schoools. You choose, which you'd prefer.

Again this doesnt really have to do with Racism either. A majority of people disagree with homosexuality. So why on earth should we change the deffinition and purpose of marriage for people who knew both before they chose their lifestyle? Marriage has a purpose. to procreate and raise children in a stable unit. That is why we have legal status for marriage, because its the best way to raise children. No one gets married saying. "why dont you and i get married so we can oppress them homos over there." They get married because they want to start creating a family. Something thats impossible for the same sex community to do because they cant create anything together. Thats not how we were created. Gays are no more oppressed for being unable to marry then mammals are oppressed by birds for not being able grow feathers.
Ok... If you say that marriage is for procreation, then let's just be consistent. Shall we decree that if either partner is sterile, then they shouldn't get married. Or too old. Maybe if you're young and not ready to start a family, then we shouldn't allow them to get married as well. There are numerous other situations where marriage is not used for the purpose of procreation.... are you really saying that we should disallow those?

Personally, I don't think so.

Ultimately, I'd agree with you that the ultimate purpose for marriage is for procreation. But I likewise understand that that is not always the case.

In general marriage is for the purpose of two people uniting as a result of a choice. I say that should apply for any two people that want to commit to that choice. Like, I've said, I'd be more than willing to give a different word for the other ones.

If you use procreation as the basis for allowing the word "marriage", then you may have to alter a lot of currently "married" people, who don't have, nor intend to have children.

And to get back to the topic of the thread. The original poster made some serious accusations against President Reagan and President Bush. Id like to see him back up the racists charges.
In essence this is the topic of threat. Maybe a slightly different bent on the way the thread was intended to originate.

But to tie it up, Bush and the Republican party very often take the position of the oppressive majority with no regard for the oppressed minority. If you were being inflicted by the oppressive majority, then you would very likely see Bush and the Republican party as rascist/prejudicist.

Be aware, that the whole equality for minorities came about, not because the oppressive majority came to some realization. Some of the judges of the time, were able to see beyond the opinions of the majority and made decisions for the greater good.

As a result, Blacks and women.... were granted equal rights, that should've already been granted to them based on the pre-existing rights declared in the Constitution.

 

[shergald]

This was the question posed by this thread. Then someone asked for proof as if it were something that is reported on in scientific journals. If you do not know the recent history of the Republican party then it is somewhat dubious to ask for proof.

Here are some excerpts from an article on the Republican party and racism which reflects on the party leadership:

......The Republican Party has come full circle from the days of Abraham Lincoln and so disproportionately represents the interests of white people that it ought to be renamed the White People's Party. The most recent chairman of the Republican National Committee, Haley Barbour, associates himself with the most despicable kinds of white racists -- those who have money and power. Haley Barbour recently appeared side-by-side with the Council of Concerned Citizens (aka the CCC, the Coo Clucks Clan, and the Uptown KKK), a white racist hate group which is almost exclusively male and which is off-limits to blacks, jews, and other minorities. Haley Barbour's friends in the all-white CCC wave confederate flags, espouse deporting blacks to Africa, claim the Holocaust was a hoax, oppose immigration of Asians, Latinos, and other minorities, have ties to the French neo-fascist Le Pen, and oppose the mixing of races which they call miscegenation. Haley Barbour's friends include George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are shamelessly supporting Barbour's campaign for Governor of Mississippi, a state with a history of white racism and KKK activity. Long time Republicans and closet racists Trent Lott and Bob Barr have also supported the CCC and remain unapologetic.

The percentage of Republicans who are white is so embarrassing that the figure is not published. In a typical election over 85% of blacks vote democratic. The percentage of Republicans who are male is also unknown but would appear to be about 80%.

 

[sitarro]

I just can't wait to hear your explanation for the incredible popularity among Republicans for Security Advisor Rice , Secretary of State Powell and Supreme Court Justice Thomas . All three appointed by Republicans , all three self made individuals , all three possessing incredibly powerful minds and skills and all three proud Republicans . . . but all three thought of as sell outs and "Uncle Toms" in the Black community. Who are the racists?
Oh by the way , Secretary of State Powell and Security Advisor Rice were appointed by President George W. Bush , he depends on these two for the most important decisions he makes every day and Ms. Rice is constantly by his side , how bad do you want him to be racist?

As far as that last post shergald , you should be ashamed for quoting such an incredible line of B.S. , but then again that is all that the Democrat party has been promising the Black community as long as I can remember . . .B.S.!
How many years have we heard the same complaints from blacks and the same promises by Democrat politicians ? Yet for some reason blacks overwhelmingly vote for the same B.S. , whose fault is that?
My family is from the Deep South , within 40 miles of the Gulf of Mexico , in the middle of Louisiana . Nobody in my ancestory had anything to do with slavery except for the British enslaving MY ancestors in Nova Scotia . Living in the South for most of my 50 years I had never seen anything having to do with the KKK until I moved to Denver , Colorado and saw their rallies on the Capitol steps twice a year . I am so very bored with assholes and their prejudice of the South and the people that live here . You people that feel that way are easily just as ignorant as the people you assume populate these states . You make fun of NASCAR fans , a lot who are black , but you ignore Hockey fans . How many black Hockey players are there . How many blacks are invited to play polo at the Kennedy or Kerry compounds . For that matter , how many blacks , besides servants , ever see the inside of either of those families' compounds . Who makes up the overwhelming majority of the fan base of Tiger Woods , of the NFL , The NBA ? Is snow sking a rasist sport ?I never see blacks or Spanish speaking people on the slopes .
Are any of you going to try to tell me that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton aren't blatant racists? You know they are . They pre judge white people every time they look at one. I'm a 5' 10" white boy , what do you think would happen to me if I tried to get into a pickup basketball game in Watts or Harlem , would I be welcomed with open arms ? Get your own house in order before you accuse others of such a vile hatred.
I have no doubt that most Republicans would proudly cast a vote for Ms.Rice or General Powell for President tomorrow , I know that all of the Republicans that I know would .

One other thing , my brother played in a golf tournament years ago with Dan Quayle . He asked him about Clinton and he said he had never played golf with him but they had talked about the game before . Quayle asked him how he got away with playing so much golf because the press gave Quayle and Bush so much crap for playing when they were in office . Clinton told him he had a secret about that , he said that he always made sure he had a black man in the foursome and that way the press left him alone . If you think back , Vernon Jordan was a standard playing partner for Bill . It kind of sounds like he used Jordan the same way Democrats have been using the black community for years . He is also a huge cheater on the golf course .

 

[_dmp_]

Originally posted by LoneVoice
The argument that I hear most strongly on your side is that you want to protect the sanctity of the word "marriage". I can understand wanting to have a distinction between that word (marriage) as opposed to whatever word (other than marriage) gays would like to choose to use (hypothetically lets say civil unions). As long as their civil unions provide them all the same legal rights as "marriage" (i.e. inheritance, deathbed decisions, ...).

That would maintain the alleged sanctity of the word "marriage". While allowing gay rights as well. Nobody gets harmed.

Right - stop basing your decisions on the argument you 'hear' - and spend a couple hours doing REAL research..

 

[BlackMan]

It is incredible for anyone to have grown up in the deep south not to have witnessed let alone experience the transformation of old southern Democrats and the old bigoted southern Democratic party into upstanding white-only Republicans after the Civil Rights Act of 1965 when the southern political establishment cursed Johnson. You need to read some history. To suggest that the presence of Powell, Rice, and Thomas (indirectly) in the Bush administration proves that the modern Republican party is not built upon racism, is like saying that Richard Nixon was not antisemitic just because he referred to Kissinger as a 'Jew boy.' Doesn't Kissinger's presence prove that Nixon was not antisemitic? I do agree with you, however, that there is as much racism in the north as there is in the south today, all of it supporting Republican issues and voting with the white male faction.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by shergald
This was the question posed by this thread. Then someone asked for proof as if it were something that is reported on in scientific journals. If you do not know the recent history of the Republican party then it is somewhat dubious to ask for proof.

Here are some excerpts from an article on the Republican party and racism which reflects on the party leadership:

......The Republican Party has come full circle from the days of Abraham Lincoln and so disproportionately represents the interests of white people that it ought to be renamed the White People's Party. The most recent chairman of the Republican National Committee, Haley Barbour, associates himself with the most despicable kinds of white racists -- those who have money and power. Haley Barbour recently appeared side-by-side with the Council of Concerned Citizens (aka the CCC, the Coo Clucks Clan, and the Uptown KKK), a white racist hate group which is almost exclusively male and which is off-limits to blacks, jews, and other minorities. Haley Barbour's friends in the all-white CCC wave confederate flags, espouse deporting blacks to Africa, claim the Holocaust was a hoax, oppose immigration of Asians, Latinos, and other minorities, have ties to the French neo-fascist Le Pen, and oppose the mixing of races which they call miscegenation. Haley Barbour's friends include George Bush and Dick Cheney, who are shamelessly supporting Barbour's campaign for Governor of Mississippi, a state with a history of white racism and KKK activity. Long time Republicans and closet racists Trent Lott and Bob Barr have also supported the CCC and remain unapologetic.

The percentage of Republicans who are white is so embarrassing that the figure is not published. In a typical election over 85% of blacks vote democratic. The percentage of Republicans who are male is also unknown but would appear to be about 80%.

Here's the link to the article you published, which was originally posted by Students and Youth Against Racism at Penn State. A dubiously written article, if I might add.

 

[LoneVoice]

Originally posted by sitarro
What exactly is the point of your message? You've rambled on in various directions and didn't respond to the main points.

I'll spell it out for you. In my message the main points were.
1. I agree that we should judge people by their character and not by the color of their skin. And, affirmative action is a remedy for when those judgements fail. Thus it reduces the racial divide.

2. Although marriage is ultimately for procreation. Currently, that's not always the case (irregardless of the gay situation). If you say that marriage should be limited for the purpose of procreation, then their are a number of current marriages that you'd have to break up.

So, in general marriage is for the purpose of two people uniting as a result of a choice. Let's allow people to make their own choices about their lifestyle and grant them the legal rights reflexive of that. I'd suggest giving gays a different word, other than "marriage".

Just because gays have legal rights, doesn't mean yours and my legal rights are affected.

3. Within the last century on the issues that we declared (affirmative action, religious tolerance, gay marriage), the Republican party predominantly takes the position of the oppressive majority.

As in the equal rights amendment, minorities were granted inalienable rights deemed under the Constitution. This was granted by rulings from judges, rather than vote of the public, because of the prejudices of the oppressive majority.


I just can't wait to hear your explanation for the incredible popularity among Republicans for Security Advisor Rice , Secretary of State Powell and Supreme Court Justice Thomas . All three appointed by Republicans , all three self made individuals , all three possessing incredibly powerful minds and skills and all three proud Republicans . . . but all three thought of as sell outs and "Uncle Toms" in the Black community.

Has Thomas ever made a ruling that has been consistent with the viewpoints of the Black community?

Rice has made a choice to be Republican, and she doggedly fulfills that choice with all the passion that she can muster.

Powell is the most interesting one of the lot. Of all the ones mentioned he is the most MODERATELY republican. He is the most liked and accepted amongst the Black community. Recall, that he was so moderate that when people speculated that he might run for the office of the President, nobody knew which party that he'd be affiliated with (Republican, Democrat, or even Independent). He chose not to run for office and he chose to lean Republican.

Also be aware, that Powell was the one, that strove to slow down Bush's tirade to war with Iraq. Powell was the one who led the efforts to increase multi-lateral support, because with his war experience he recognized the value that it would have with regards to dealing with Iraq. Unfortunately, Powell's efforts did not meet with immediate success, and so the Bush attack dogs took over. (wasn't it after just a couple of weeks of effort from Powell???)


Who are the racists?
Oh by the way , Secretary of State Powell and Security Advisor Rice were appointed by President George W. Bush , he depends on these two for the most important decisions he makes every day and Ms. Rice is constantly by his side , how bad do you want him to be racist?
Be cautious. For example, what's one of the first things most racist people say... "I'm not rascist, I have Black friends". That alone, does not mean that you don't have racial tendencies.

But, on the other hand, selecting, coordinating with, and working with 2 blacks on his main staff is definitely a clear sign of non-racial tendencies.

(Of course there is always that perception thing that can often be done for politics: hmmm there is a perception that our constituency is rascist, how can we counter that? Ah... all we have to do is put Blacks at certain positions --- which is really an indirect form of affirmative action by disguise). Just to let you know, I, personally, am not making claims at this time, that that is what occured in this case....

How many years have we heard the same complaints from blacks and the same promises by Democrat politicians ? Yet for some reason blacks overwhelmingly vote for the same B.S. , whose fault is that?
That is too general for anyone to respond to.... you will need to be a little more specific.

My family is from the Deep South , within 40 miles of the Gulf of Mexico , in the middle of Louisiana . Nobody in my ancestory had anything to do with slavery except for the British enslaving MY ancestors in Nova Scotia . Living in the South for most of my 50 years I had never seen anything having to do with the KKK until I moved to Denver , Colorado and saw their rallies on the Capitol steps twice a year . I am so very bored with assholes and their prejudice of the South and the people that live here . You people that feel that way are easily just as ignorant as the people you assume populate these states . You make fun of NASCAR fans , a lot who are black , but you ignore Hockey fans . How many black Hockey players are there . How many blacks are invited to play polo at the Kennedy or Kerry compounds . For that matter , how many blacks , besides servants , ever see the inside of either of those families' compounds . Who makes up the overwhelming majority of the fan base of Tiger Woods , of the NFL , The NBA ? Is snow sking a rasist sport ?I never see blacks or Spanish speaking people on the slopes .

Once again not clear of what you point is.

Are any of you going to try to tell me that Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton aren't blatant racists? You know they are . They pre judge white people every time they look at one.
On what are you basing your comments that they are racists? Most of what I've heard them comment on is that they are blatantly against rascism.

Me not liking you for dumb reasons (or vice versa), is not the main issue. You can dislike who you want. But when an oppressive majority prevents or denies benefits to a oppressed minority, then that becomes an issue that often requires resolution.


I'm a 5' 10" white boy , what do you think would happen to me if I tried to get into a pickup basketball game in Watts or Harlem , would I be welcomed with open arms ? [\B]
Hey! I agree with you. Minorities have come to dominate in certain avenues. This is a prime example of rascism being applied against you. You probably don't like it. You may even have come to accept it. Ultimately, it's rascist and shouldn't be tolerated either. If you want to advance a movement to eliminate that rascism, I'd support you in it.

Get your own house in order before you accuse others of such a vile hatred.
Let's advance all reasonable causes for getting houses in order (to maintain your analogy). If you use the we'll fix ours after you fix yours philosophy, nobody's houses will be in order.

I have no doubt that most Republicans would proudly cast a vote for Ms.Rice or General Powell for President tomorrow , I know that all of the Republicans that I know would.
Interesting how you said "most Republicans". It might be interesting to explore that. If they choose not to vote for Rice or Powell for policy reasons, then that's fine. If they choose not to vote for them for racial reasons, then that's exactly the point.