You Have Awoken A Sleeping Giant

[bucs90]

One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.

 

[Asclepias]

One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.

Its all good to talk tough on the internet but I have noticed no change in white behavior in public. White guys like you still cant hold my gaze and turn red with frustration and anger. When is the uprising? I'm waiting for the first brave white racist to come my way.

 

[Meathead]

One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.

In essence, that is correct. The public is tired of being bullied by punks.

 

[Asclepias]

One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.

In essence, that is correct. The public is tired of being bullied by punks.

Cave monkeys like you dont represent the public. In your case you dont even live in the states and happen to be hiding in some european shit hole.

 

[Correll]

Correll argues that whites are discriminated against but does not show how with objective evidence. I think what he wants is a White Man's Civilization in the United States and is desperately unhappy that we don't.

I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.

I will be happy to do so again.

Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.

The Power of Race


"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997

Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"


As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.

Browns get only 130 points.

This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.

The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.

The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.

It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.

Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.

And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)

Is he describing you, Correll?

Yes, very much so.

HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.

His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.

And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.

Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?

Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.

Less than one percent.

That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.

Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.

The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.

That was well after he won that state election.

GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.

Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.

Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?

Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?

 

[Correll]

That they are allowed and even encouraged to actively pursue their interests was the whole of my point.

Thanks for agreeing.

As to why, blacks, back then in 1909, faced real discrimination, both legal and informal.

Why do you ask?

I ask because you seem to draw a parallel between your "struggle" and that of blacks.
Do you believe whites are now marginalized in the way blacks were to the point of needing a similar advocacy organization? That's what you seem to be saying.

Well, don't get lost in the details.

My point is that Whites, as a group, have interests and do not actively pursue them, and indeed, the normal response is any white even suggest doing so, they are generally shouted down as "racist".

I do not think that a National Association for the Advancement of White People is so much needed, as simply a breaking of the Taboo of speaking of Whites as a Group like every other, that has interests and is expected to protect and pursue them.

I wonder why they're shouted down as racist. Could there be historical precident supporting that view?

No. The purpose is to shut down serious debate on real issues.

That is what the Race Card is.

It is a form of Propaganda.

My point on White Interests stands.

No sir. It is you who is plainly playing the race card. You play it casually and often. You play it as if there isn't hundreds of years of baggage attached to it. The truth is that
" white interest " is the same as it always was. It may be under the surface now but it remains unchanged. The only thing you have lost as a white man is the ability to be an unfettered bigot in public. Cry me a fucking river.

I have posted a link to a academic study documenting a widespread example of anti-white discrimination.

This is not a "Race Card" play, that is a valid complaint of anti-white discrimination, and thus a valid issue of White Interest, ie not to be discriminated against.

THat you pretend that wanting to not be discriminated against is equivalent to wanting to be an unfettered bigot in public

actually demonstrated exactly what I was saying.

That it is Taboo to discuss Whites as a Group, or their interests, and that any such attempt no matter how valid is shouted down by cries of "RACIST"!!

I will cry you a river..

If by cry you a river, you mean get in your face, demand justice and never stop for the rest of your life.

 

[Correll]

I don't care what Whites have done in he past, fuck your White guilt

It's not about white guilt it's about truth. Are you really that immature and insecure that you can't handle it without feeling it's an indictment of you personally? In my experience, its only people who feel that whites are superior who can't handle this truth.

MOron.

You ARE USING THE PAST TO PERSONALLY INDICT WHITE PEOPLE TODAY.

You are using it to dismiss any complaints about anti-white discrimination.

You are using it to smear modern whites.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We don't need the whole thread, we only need

Correll: "I have posted a link to a academic study documenting a widespread example of anti-white discrimination."

The study pointed out that it was not conclusive and that certain interests would take it out of context for their own purposes.

And that is what Correll has done.

 

[Correll]

I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.

I will be happy to do so again.

Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.

The Power of Race


"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997

Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"


As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.

Browns get only 130 points.

This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.

The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.

The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.

It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.

Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.

And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)

Is he describing you, Correll?

Yes, very much so.

HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.

His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.

And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.

Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?

Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.

Less than one percent.

That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.

Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.

The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was. That was well after he won that state election. GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past. Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past. Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South? Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?

The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him.

NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?

 

[JakeStarkey]

I don't care what Whites have done in he past, fuck your White guilt

It's not about white guilt it's about truth. Are you really that immature and insecure that you can't handle it without feeling it's an indictment of you personally? In my experience, its only people who feel that whites are superior who can't handle this truth.

MOron. You ARE USING THE PAST TO PERSONALLY INDICT WHITE PEOPLE TODAY. You are using it to dismiss any complaints about anti-white discrimination. You are using it to smear modern whites.

You cannot show the great majority of whites feel indicted or smeared. However, you do personally, and that must be because you feel threatened.

 

[JakeStarkey]

NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?

You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.

 

[Correll]

We don't need the whole thread, we only need

Correll: "I have posted a link to a academic study documenting a widespread example of anti-white discrimination."

The study pointed out that it was not conclusive and that certain interests would take it out of context for their own purposes.

And that is what Correll has done.

The study did NOT point out that it was inconclusive.

ONe of the researches tried to spin the results for reasons that we can speculate on, but he did not repudiate his results, and his numbers stand.

And they document widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League University admissions.

YOu claimed that I do not shown any anti-white discrimination.

Now I have done so, as I have done so many times before.

The problem is not that I do not support my position.

The problem is that you dismiss and ignore any facts that are contrary to your political views.

I am not taking the research out of context.

Blacks get a the equivalent of a 310 point sat bonus for having black skin in Ivy League University admissions.

YOu are being very dishonest.

Because you cannot admit that my complaint is valid because it would destroy your entire false world view.

The study was peer reviewed. If you want to dispute it's findings, please post a link to a study showing why that numbers are wrong.

Good luck with that.

 

[Correll]

I don't care what Whites have done in he past, fuck your White guilt

It's not about white guilt it's about truth. Are you really that immature and insecure that you can't handle it without feeling it's an indictment of you personally? In my experience, its only people who feel that whites are superior who can't handle this truth.

MOron. You ARE USING THE PAST TO PERSONALLY INDICT WHITE PEOPLE TODAY. You are using it to dismiss any complaints about anti-white discrimination. You are using it to smear modern whites.

You cannot show the great majority of whites feel indicted or smeared. However, you do personally, and that must be because you feel threatened.

It is what he is doing in this very thread.

YOur desire to bring in what most people feel is not a bad one. If you want can find a poll on that go for it.

And then you speculate on what I am feeling.

Liberals: All the intellectual honestly of a crack whore.

 

[Correll]

NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.

And you didn't answer any of my questions.

WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?

You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.

Unsupported assertion.

My questions are not immaterial. YOu know that, that is why you are afraid to answer them.

Why did David Duke lie about being Born Again and repudiating his racist past while running for office in the Deep South?

Answer: Because even in the Deep South, as a former Klansman, he knew that to have any chance of winning he had to hide and/or lie about being a racist.

Once he was fully exposed he couldn't win anything. Last time he ran for National GOP office he got less than one percent.


That is the power of Racism in the GOP.

ANd that the Truth you cannot bring yourself to face.

For it would destroy your entire false world view.

 

[Correll]

I posted where the study said that it would be taken out of context by people with agendas.

And that is you.

Your complaint, Correll, is not valid.

You feel threatened, while the great majority of whites do not demonstrate that we feel threatened, and there is no way that you could possibly prove any such thing.

So it's your burden, which the great majority of us will not allow you to put on us.

Yes. We already discussed that.

That was after the fact spin.

It was not a repudiation of his numbers. HIs research is sound, and you have not addressed it.


THis discrimination is not something I "Feel".

It is something I have linked to documentation for you and that you are in a state of Denial about.


Blacks gets the equivalent of a 310 point sat bonus in Ivy League Admissions for being Black.

That is real, documented, anti-white discrimination.

Stop lying to yourself.

 

[Correll]

Yes, the GOP knew what was going on, and you can't prove your assertion at all that it did not. Your argument with Duke has been a loser from the get go.

I posted where the study said that it would be taken out of context by people with agendas.

And that is you.

Your complaint, Correll, is not valid.

You feel threatened, while the great majority of whites do not demonstrate that we feel threatened, and there is no way that you could possibly prove any such thing.

So it's your burden, which the great majority of us will not allow you to put on us.

You have not supported your claim that the GOP knew from the beginning.

I remember reading the report, at the time of the GOP national representative who went down there and then reported back.

And set off the GOP anti-Duke response.



The researcher has not repudiated his work. The study stands.

I am taking nothing out of context or misrepresenting it.

Blacks get a 310 sat bonus for being black.

The study was published for peer review. If you have a problem with it, you need to link to a review that debunks it.

That is what peer review is FOR and how it works.

The discrimination I complain about is not a "Feeling" I have , but a documented fact.

And you are in Denial.

 

[Faun]

Correll argues that whites are discriminated against but does not show how with objective evidence. I think what he wants is a White Man's Civilization in the United States and is desperately unhappy that we don't.

I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.

I will be happy to do so again.

Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.

The Power of Race


"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997

Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"


As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.

Browns get only 130 points.

This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.

The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.

The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.

It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.

Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.

And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)

Is he describing you, Correll?

Yes, very much so.

HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.

His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.

And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.

Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?

Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.

Less than one percent.

That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.

Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.

The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.

That was well after he won that state election.

GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.

Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.

Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?

Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?

You're saying the Democrats figured out how racist he is but Republicans couldn't until they elected him.

His past affiliations with the KKK were well known.

 

[Correll]

I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.

I will be happy to do so again.

Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.

The Power of Race


"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997

Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"


As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.

Browns get only 130 points.

This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.

The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.

The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.

It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.

Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.

And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)

Is he describing you, Correll?

Yes, very much so.

HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.

His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.

And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.

Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?

Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.

Less than one percent.

That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.

Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.

The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.

That was well after he won that state election.

GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.

Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.

Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?

Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?

You're saying the Democrats figured out how racist he is but Republicans couldn't until they elected him.

His past affiliations with the KKK were well known.

I did not say that.

This is what I said, of which you addressed nothing.


The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.

That was well after he won that state election.

GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.

Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.

Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?

Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?

 

[Faun]

NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.


And you didn't answer any of my questions.


WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?

You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.

Unsupported assertion.


My questions are not immaterial. YOu know that, that is why you are afraid to answer them.


Why did David Duke lie about being Born Again and repudiating his racist past while running for office in the Deep South?

Answer: Because even in the Deep South, as a former Klansman, he knew that to have any chance of winning he had to hide and/or lie about being a racist.

Once he was fully exposed he couldn't win anything. Last time he ran for National GOP office he got less than one percent.


That is the power of Racism in the GOP.

ANd that the Truth you cannot bring yourself to face.

For it would destroy your entire false world view.

It's very dishonest to frame the GOP's contempt for Duke in 1992 by saying he got less than 1% nationally. The reality is, the GOP successfully kept his name off ballots in many states. While that still results in zero percent votes cast for him, you attempt to make it appear it was out of the voters rejecting him, when in fact, it was voters not given the choice to vote for him in such states.

And while I'm not arguing the right embraced him, they didn't; he received far more than 1% in the southern states when his name was included on the ballot.

Mississippi ..... 11%
Louisiana .......... 9%
S. Carolina ........ 7%

Republican Party presidential primaries, 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Correll]

NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.


And you didn't answer any of my questions.


WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?

You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.

Unsupported assertion.


My questions are not immaterial. YOu know that, that is why you are afraid to answer them.


Why did David Duke lie about being Born Again and repudiating his racist past while running for office in the Deep South?

Answer: Because even in the Deep South, as a former Klansman, he knew that to have any chance of winning he had to hide and/or lie about being a racist.

Once he was fully exposed he couldn't win anything. Last time he ran for National GOP office he got less than one percent.


That is the power of Racism in the GOP.

ANd that the Truth you cannot bring yourself to face.

For it would destroy your entire false world view.

It's very dishonest to frame the GOP's contempt for Duke in 1992 by saying he got less than 1% nationally. The reality is, the GOP successfully kept his name off ballots in many states. While that still results in zero percent votes cast for him, you attempt to make it appear it was out of the voters rejecting him, when in fact, it was voters not given the choice to vote for him in such states.

And while I'm not arguing the right embraced him, they didn't; he received far more than 1% in the southern states when his name was included on the ballot.

Mississippi ..... 11%
Louisiana .......... 9%
S. Carolina ........ 7%

Republican Party presidential primaries, 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I agree that it was unfortunate that Duke was kept from those primaries. It would have been nice to have better numbers on how much he was rejected.

11% is pretty shocking.