The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Grumblenuts]

So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.

Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.

 

[Correll]

Asians have a case of discrimination against them that benefits just about everyone else, except maybe jews.

No idea what that's supposed to mean.

Do you like the idea that having black skin is worth 310 SAT points, effectively? Do you support that?

In principle. Don't know for sure without seeing how they arrived at that number.

The looked at every admission over a certain period of time and compared SAT scores to admissions.


Given similar grades, a black kid could get admitted with SAT scores 310 points lower than a white kid.


You support it in principle. Ok.

Is there any limit to how much you would want see taken from whites to be given to blacks?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.


And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.


Is that correct?

If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!

 

[Correll]

So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.

Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.

Sounds kind of subjective. Who decides when the disadvantage is clear or if a reason is well understood?

 

[Correll]

So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.


And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.


Is that correct?

If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!

Public school has to take all comers? Why? Why should blacks not be given help in public schools?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Is there any limit to how much you would want see taken from whites to be given to blacks?

You want to take money from whites and give it to blacks? You're such a weirdo!

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.

Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.

Sounds kind of subjective. Who decides when the disadvantage is clear or if a reason is well understood?

Not me, obviously. You neither. Competent professionals hopefully.

 

[Correll]

Is there any limit to how much you would want see taken from whites to be given to blacks?

You want to take money from whites and give it to blacks? You're such a weirdo!

It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.


I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?

 

[Correll]

So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.

Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.

Sounds kind of subjective. Who decides when the disadvantage is clear or if a reason is well understood?

Not me, obviously. You neither. Competent professionals hopefully.

What kind of professionals do you hire to make such a moral call? Moral Philosophers? Evolutionary Sociologists?

 

[Grumblenuts]

So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.


And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.


Is that correct?

If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!

Public school has to take all comers? Why? Why should blacks not be given help in public schools?

You mean giving all equal access somehow excludes blacks in your world?

 

[Correll]

So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.


And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.


Is that correct?

If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!

Public school has to take all comers? Why? Why should blacks not be given help in public schools?

You mean giving all equal access somehow excludes blacks in your world?

Equal access? Ok, so public resources have to be given out equally? No special consideration when it comes to public resources but private money is allowed to discrimination as much as they want?

 

[Grumblenuts]

It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.

My ass!

I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?

I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.

 

[Grumblenuts]

What kind of professionals do you hire to make such a moral call?

None. Not my line of work. Is it yours?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Ok, so public resources have to be given out equally?

No.

No special consideration when it comes to public resources

Yeah, there should be.

but private money is allowed to discrimination as much as they want?

No, they have to follow the law. How old are you?

 

[Correll]

It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.

My ass!

I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?

I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.

You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".


You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.


Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".

 

[Correll]

What kind of professionals do you hire to make such a moral call?

None. Not my line of work. Is it yours?

It is more of a passion.

 

[Correll]

Ok, so public resources have to be given out equally?

No.

No special consideration when it comes to public resources

Yeah, there should be.

but private money is allowed to discrimination as much as they want?

No, they have to follow the law. How old are you?

You seem to be jumping all over the place.


So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.


Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?


Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?

 

[daveman]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.


Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?

He's counting on the usual leftist response: Do Not Question The Black Person.

Rational people, however, don't do that.

I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.

Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?

It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?

Well, you are a leftist. Nothing but emotion.

And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?

Well, you are a leftist. Emotion and double standards.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.

My ass!

I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?

I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.

You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".


You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.


Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".

It would theoretically be calibrated to make up for the disparity. How they determine that exactly? I obviously have no idea, but I think it safe to say not zero nor 100%. Why do you care?

 

[daveman]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.