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.
Why are you responding to something that wasn't addressed to you?
Gee, I thought this was a public thread. The minute you attacked me personally, because you had no legitimate response to my post, was the moment you made anything you say open season.
Why do you start a thread with the intent of squashing alternate views and deflecting reasonable arguements?
She also added for emphasis "ALL WHITE...white males." Basically, it was very accusatory/threatening/semi-screaming. There is a line being crossed where it goes beyond rhetoric or a call for equal rights, and white males--and others--should pay attention. Again, some of this is getting a bit much to where it's purposefully meant to tear down the way of life of white males, and that's where I draw the line. It's not okay to say that and not expect a response. That's as much as I will say on that.
Edit: She noted she was also 62. So her experience is clouded by the civil rights era and not that relevant to the strides blacks have made in today's business climate.
really because when people uses the same expression "all hispanics" all blacks etc, they are being accused of playing the card race
I live in DC, in 2008 the neo nazi party marched from the washington memorial to the capitol advocating for an "ALL WHITE AMERICA" and advocating for separating races etc. There was nothing no one can do; they are protected by the first amendment. If they are protected, as extreme as they are that lady most likely is protected too...
There is a documentary about it on Nat Geo. Even groups that advocate for the expulsion of any non-white from the US are protected by the constitution. Sounds awful but that is the paradox of freedom of speech
really because when people uses the same expression "all hispanics" all blacks etc, they are being accused of playing the card race
I live in DC, in 2008 the neo nazi party marched from the washington memorial to the capitol advocating for an "ALL WHITE AMERICA" and advocating for separating races etc. There was nothing no one can do; they are protected by the first amendment. If they are protected, as extreme as they are that lady most likely is protected too...
There is a documentary about it on Nat Geo. Even groups that advocate for the expulsion of any non-white from the US are protected by the constitution. Sounds awful but that is the paradox of freedom of speech
I'm sure everyone is aware that there are fringe groups of society that have extreme views. You bring up the neo nazi party and someone may counter that with the new black panthers.
I think the point the poster was trying to make is that minorities don't like being stereo-typed but many posters here scream about old white men in a very stereo-typed manner.
I have heard people that have been upset about Obama's past dealings with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko and people on the left blow it off saying he had minor direct dealings with them. I've also heard people put down FAIR or Kris Koback because of where they get a portion of their funding. I think it is the inconsistency that bothers a lot of people.
I'm sure everyone is aware that there are fringe groups of society that have extreme views. You bring up the neo nazi party and someone may counter that with the new black panthers.
I think the point the poster was trying to make is that minorities don't like being stereo-typed but many posters here scream about old white men in a very stereo-typed manner.
I have heard people that have been upset about Obama's past dealings with Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko and people on the left blow it off saying he had minor direct dealings with them. I've also heard people put down FAIR or Kris Koback because of where they get a portion of their funding. I think it is the inconsistency that bothers a lot of people.
FAIR got over a million dollar from a fund that promotes eugenics in all not-whites. That is pretty extreme IMO
My point is the example the OP gave is protected by freedom of speech. I personally do not believe ALL white men are angry. Some are not angry.
FAIR got over a million dollar from a fund that promotes eugenics in all not-whites. That is pretty extreme IMO
My point is the example the OP gave is protected by freedom of speech. I personally do not believe ALL white men are angry. Some are not angry.
My point was that you don't have to hold the belief system of all those you surround yourself by. Obama gets funding from the communist party of the US yet people argue that he is not pushing communism. Apparently, the communist party feels he is more aligned with their beliefs than the GOP are. I guess that would be the same with FAIR. Taking funding from someone doesn't mean you believe in every segment of what they are doing. Right now the country is about equally divided among parties, one third Dem, one third Ind, and one third Rep. At least one third of the country will go with which ever person has a stance on something they feel is important at the moment. They throw their support behind an issue and it doesn't necessarily mean that someone taking that support is in agreement with the entire platform of the person making the contribution.
It would be extreme to think that just because someone makes a contribution to an organization or politician, that that entity necessarily hold all those same views.
Last edited by Isitmeorarethingsnuts?; 09-08-2012 at 11:57 AM..
Reason: Add
My point was that you don't have to hold the belief system of all those you surround yourself by. Obama gets funding from the communist party of the US yet people argue that he is not pushing communism. Apparently, the communist party feels he is more aligned with their beliefs than the GOP are. I guess that would be the same with FAIR. Taking funding from someone doesn't mean you believe in every segment of what they are doing. Right now the country is about equally divided among parties, one third Dem, one third Ind, and one third Rep. At least one third of the country will go with which ever person has a stance on something they feel is important at the moment. They throw their support behind an issue and it doesn't necessarily mean that someone taking that support is in agreement with the entire platform of the person making the contribution.
It would be extreme to think that just because someone makes a contribution to an organization or politician, that that entity necessarily hold all those same views.
I do not want to hijack this thread but taking money from an organization that promotes genetically manipulation of all non-whites and then saying we are not racists is like... illogical
If you take money from someone you are pretty much agreeing with them
If I were running an organization I would never take money of anyone that promotes the believe that one race is superior to the other, as I do not share that believe and do not condone those beliefs.
I do not want to hijack this thread but taking money from an organization that promotes genetically manipulation of all non-whites and then saying we are not racists is like... illogical
If you take money from someone you are pretty much agreeing with them
If I were running an organization I would never take money of anyone that promotes the believe that one race is superior to the other, as I do not share that believe and do not condone those beliefs.
I don't belive on race is above another either. I'm from a mixed race family. But the idea that you won't take funding from an organization that doesn't follow your belief system to a T is not feasible, IMO. I'm sure there are many Democrats that are actually Catholic and don't believe in abortion. In fact our country does business with China inspite of their atrocious work conditions.
We live in a diverse world with countless divergent opinions. I don't always agree with my own spose on many issues but our end goal is what keeps us together.
If you were running an organization I'm quite sure you would not even be aware of all the opinions your contributors may hold. The reason they are contributing to your organization may not have much to do with you but the contributor may see it as a move in their direction.
For example, George Soros has toppled gov'ts in his quest to increase his wealth. He has contributed to Obama. Is there a correlation? Or on the other side, the Koch brothers contribution to the GOP may be seen as a move toward big business. Contributors are contributors. When you take their money it doesn't mean you belive in everything they stand for. It means you, yourself, have a goal and if someone sees that your goal may be a move in their direction they will help you.
You are certainly under no obligation to take money from a contributor. But doing so in your quest for an end goal doesn't neccesatate that you have the same belief systems.
really because when people uses the same expression "all hispanics" all blacks etc, they are being accused of playing the card race
I live in DC, in 2008 the neo nazi party marched from the washington memorial to the capitol advocating for an "ALL WHITE AMERICA" and advocating for separating races etc. There was nothing no one can do; they are protected by the first amendment. If they are protected, as extreme as they are that lady most likely is protected too...
There is a documentary about it on Nat Geo. Even groups that advocate for the expulsion of any non-white from the US are protected by the constitution. Sounds awful but that is the paradox of freedom of speech
I am not claiming it isn't protected speech. Others are asking for validation of libs calling conservatives racist for the simple fact of not supporting Obama or his policies. The radio host had to go on for awhile about how race had nothing to do with it. Maybe change the word to "discrimination" and it falls in line with what the originating OP of this thread was about. So, I just laid out an example, although not a City-Data thread, of the race card being pulled when it has nothing to do with the matter. As far as what the woman said, it's basically the same as calling black person a derogatory name...say that with such hatred to a person's face. She was talking about the economy and employment. Do you see how these are similar? In terms of the woman who called into the radio show, maybe we shouldn't use the term "race card," and just use "racist" or "bigot," as is so often used just the same.
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.
