Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
When you don't agree with me.......when you can't debate me......when you can't attack me with facts.....you bring up Al Sharpton.
Nice try.
This from the guy who, in a debate about racist scholarships at public universities, has already brought up South African apartheid and racist police ...
This from the guy who, in a debate about racist scholarships at public universities, has already brought up South African apartheid and racist police ...
Al Sharpton has indeed trained you well.
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that blacks, etc, have been excluded from most of society for most of our history, and also wondering why you think that all of a sudden they have all this power. Doesn't make sense to me.........
He is reviled for being an opportunist and a hypocrite. He has power and privilege, but not much of a voice. He has spoken out loud in court sessions less than any Justice. He is obviously not a high-power jurist. He was put on that court because he is a black man who decided to play the conservative ideologue role. It's as simple as that.
So what? The Supreme Court makes its statements in written words. If Clarence Thomas chooses to speak primarily through his written words, that's his perogative.
He has just as much power as any of the other Supreme Court justices ... by "not a high power jurist" I suppose you mean he's not a blowhard, or maybe that he's just not someone you agree with.
Right -- "decided to play" a conservative, because God-forbid a black person can actually have his own opinion and not agree with the propaganda put out by the black elite.
I have stated many times on here that I was not an Obama supporter.
People here have had very different life experiences.
That does not make them crazy.
I see the logic in the idea that unless it is merit based it is unfair.
I get it.
But acknowledging unfairness in the "larger world"- you have a problem with?
Even if it does not justify AA on any level for you- you could at least agree that pointing out certain injustices is not crazy.
So what? The Supreme Court makes its statements in written words. If Clarence Thomas chooses to speak primarily through his written words, that's his perogative.
He has just as much power as any of the other Supreme Court justices ... by "not a high power jurist" I suppose you mean he's not a blowhard, or maybe that he's just not someone you agree with.
Right -- "decided to play" a conservative, because God-forbid a black person can actually have his own opinion and not agree with the propaganda put out by the black elite.
Supreme Court opinions, and Federal Court opinions, are written by clerks. He has not said anything on the bench, or off it, that points to any uncannily brilliant judicial observations. Scalia, and I can't stand him, shows his intelligence in argument and in speeches. Many conservatives show intelligence. Thomas, I know, is intelligent, but he certainly doesn't show it on the bench. Lots of people have opinions, and he is certainly entitled to his. I'm just not convinced he came by his convictions for purely intellectual reasons.
I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge that blacks, etc, have been excluded from most of society for most of our history, and also wondering why you think that all of a sudden they have all this power. Doesn't make sense to me.........
And Al Sharpton hasn't trained me.
I trained him.
Blacks have been excluded and discriminated against in most of the history of the United States. No disagreement.
That does not mean they are the only group that has ever been exluded and discriminated against, that does not mean that they have not themselves excluded and discriminated against others (both here, and in their own native countries throughout history), and most importantly, that does not justify continued racist policies just because they're turned around and applied against whites.
How far back in history do you want to go? At one time every group was discriminated against -- Africans invaded Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and made native Europeans second class citizens. Was the next 500 years of European domination just affirmative action for whites, and does that justify it?
Why don't you stop playing the race card and stop the racial discrimination if you profess to want to live in an equal society.
Again, crickets from you when it comes to the real way that people can agree on helping the truly disadvantaged -- helping people based on wealth, not skin color.
But hey, if you trained Al Sharpton, you're part of the elite black class I'm talking about, so you know very well why you don't like that idea.
Wow, this thread has now garnered 120 + responses. I will agree with those who think this is a form of discrimination, however, the donor saw fit what he wanted to do with the money, and the expression of not looking a gift horse in the mouth fits here. If MSU was offended by this proviso, the powers that be should have returned the donation. Ultimately, however, it is the decision of the donor to do what he or she sees fit to do with the money. I am consistent in this manner, I think. This is a private citizen. I wouldn't want to see a detached government authority adjudicate on how this money should be allocated, against the will of the person who donated.
That being said, I wonder what would happen if a donor pledged this amount to MSU with the stipulation that only white males could benefit. Would MSU then return the donation?
Blacks have been excluded and discriminated against in most of the history of the United States. No disagreement.
That does not mean they are the only group that has ever been exluded and discriminated against, that does not mean that they have not themselves excluded and discriminated against others (both here, and in their own native countries throughout history), and most importantly, that does not justify continued racist policies just because they're turned around and applied against whites.
We're talking about America. Who are blacks discriminating against here?
Quote:
How far back in history do you want to go? At one time every group was discriminated against -- Africans invaded Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire and made native Europeans second class citizens. Was the next 500 years of European domination just affirmative action for whites, and does that justify it?
I have cited history, so I will tell you that I know that whites were dominated by blacks/others, and vice versa, the cycle continues. But my reference is to the interactions between Europeans, and Africans, and their descendants, in what we call the USA. And I don't see how whites are at a disadvantage at all here.
Quote:
Why don't you stop playing the race card and stop the racial discrimination if you profess to want to live in an equal society.
But the society is not equal. What am I supposed to do except for try to make it more so?
Quote:
Again, crickets from you when it comes to the real way that people can agree on helping the truly disadvantaged -- helping people based on wealth, not skin color.
Rich blacks are not the ones who need the most help. But there are so few of those people that I don't understand your emphasis on this point.
Quote:
But hey, if you trained Al Sharpton, you're part of the elite black class I'm talking about, so you know very well why you don't like that idea.
Supreme Court opinions, and Federal Court opinions, are written by clerks. He has not said anything on the bench, or off it, that points to any uncannily brilliant judicial observations. Scalia, and I can't stand him, shows his intelligence in argument and in speeches. Many conservatives show intelligence. Thomas, I know, is intelligent, but he certainly doesn't show it on the bench. Lots of people have opinions, and he is certainly entitled to his. I'm just not convinced he came by his convictions for purely intellectual reasons.
Oh please. Clerks draft opinions at the direction of the Supreme Court justices, and not a single word goes into the opinion that the justices don't 100% consider and support. If you think otherwise, you're just ignorant or playing more word games.
Well hey, Thomas isn't out to convince you that his convictions are the result of intellectual reasons and not some (unexplained and illogical, given his lifetime appointment) need to adopt someone else's belief to curry favor.
I could say the same thing about any justice -- "I'm not convinced he/she came by their convictions for purely intellectual reasons." So what?
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.
Exactly!!!..So true...One doesn't need a law degree from Harvard to understand that discrimination is wrong. People who dismiss this argument with their snarky one liner comments only reveal how intellectually shallow they are. It’s the oldest trick in the book. It's pointless to even point out the obvious to them. These people aren't kidding anyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
