5 million dollars donated to Montclair State: Free money for everyone except white males (wage, rich)

[Lusitan]

[quote=Sunil's Dad;8374335]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

I'm still trying to figure out how white men are being discriminated against, and just who are these folks who are discriminating against them? Is it a South African apartheid system where a few minorities wield absolute power in a brutal manner?

Is that the sole means through which a person can be discriminated against?

[seren77]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

Yup. He's on record as paying lip service to it -- let's see if he does anything about it. The black special interests groups (run by the same black elites like Sharpton & Co. that get most of the benefits of the racists policies of reverse discrimination) would be all over him. And I think he's too much of a coward to address it.

I am happy you are giving him a benefit of doubt.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

Shhhhh! You're dangerously close to suggesting the radical idea that a person's culture and behavior, not skin color, is the key determinant in his or her success. Do you have any idea how many people will be disenfranchised from their victimhood status if your radical ideas were to be accepted?



What about Clarence Thomas? He's not disadvantaged either, nor are his children (if he has any). He's actually someone who does more than simply flap his lips against racial discrimination -- he actually stands up and votes against it. A man of courage if there ever was one, which is why he is despised by nearly all of the black elites.

Hats off to Clarence Thomas, no question about it! Not disadvantaged, just intelligent and hard working.

Clarence Thomas is a very, very cunning man, even brilliant, although I don't think that brilliance has shown much on the Supreme Court. He was very much discriminated against as a youngster, in one of America's poorest counties, and he did indeed arise above his circumstances because of affirmative action. He did, however, radically change his views to pander to the incoming Reagan wave in the early '80s, and he was rewarded by the Republican right because of it. If there was anyone who benefited from affirmative action, it was Clarence Thomas, and then he turned around and denounced it. A very slick maneuver on his part.

[CaptainNJ]

[quote=Lusitan;8374394]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

Is that the sole means through which a person can be discriminated against?

cute how he has to bring up an extreme example of discrimination to make a silly argument that offering money to one group (while deliberately excluding another group) isnt discriminating against the other group.

[Lusitan]

Originally Posted by seren77

I am happy you are giving him a benefit of doubt.

Oh, I'm giving him plenty of doubt.

You can judge a politician by the base that he panders to, and I've seen Obama's.

[Lucario]

Originally Posted by Lusitan

Let's talk about today, not a 100 or 1,000 years ago. Today, rich blacks have far, far more opportunities and privileges than poor whites.

It's the reality of today that you don't want to address, I see.

I am talking about today. Today is impacted by yesterday, by last week, by 10 years ago, by 100 years ago, by 1000 years ago........As long as there are racist cops and judges out there, a rich black man still is closer to prison than lots of white people.

[Lucario]

[quote=Lusitan;8374394]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

Is that the sole means through which a person can be discriminated against?

I am still waiting for you to tell me who is discriminating against white males.........

[Lusitan]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

Clarence Thomas is a very, very cunning man, even brilliant, although I don't think that brilliance has shown much on the Supreme Court. He was very much discriminated against as a youngster, in one of America's poorest counties, and he did indeed arise above his circumstances because of affirmative action. He did, however, radically change his views to pander to the incoming Reagan wave in the early '80s, and he was rewarded by the Republican right because of it. If there was anyone who benefited from affirmative action, it was Clarence Thomas, and then he turned around and denounced it. A very slick maneuver on his part.

Funny how when someone comes around to a point of view one agrees with, it's "evolve" or "develop" or "obtained wisdom" and "seen the light". But if they change their position to something you disagree with, it must be for a cynical reason, like getting a promotion.

Clarence Thomas doesn't need anyone. He has lifetime guaranteed power and privilege based on his lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. He is one man who doesn't need to pander to anyone. And he speaks his mind and his heart, and he is reviled for it in the circles of black elites (and whites who like to pat themselves on the back and pretend they're benefiting society as they sit in lilly white suburbs and ivory towers and cook up social engineering window-dressing projects for the masses).

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

I am still waiting for you to tell me who is discriminating against white males.........

you think that avoiding the answer is some kind of goofy intellectual way to debate the issue?

if someone gives money to everyone except white males, they are discriminating against white males.

you going to ignore that answer again in some pathetic pseudo intellectualism that you seem to like to use.

[Lucario]

[quote=CaptainNJ;8374392]

Originally Posted by Sunil's Dad

minorities are afforded special grants/scholarships and other coniserations that whites arent. this puts the whites at a disadvantage. if everyone gets $10k for tuition except white males then they are being discriminated against.

your welcome

Whites are, by definition, given considerations in hiring, in housing, in other, more mundane opportunities, that minorities have never, and will never, receive.

Assuming that "everyone but white males" gets $10k for tuition, I will counter by saying that it has been proven again and again that white males, as a group, have exponentially more wealth, than "everyone" else. Can you prove me wrong?