 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeArticlesDiving DestinationsLearning Scuba DivingMarine LifeMiscellaneousDiscussion GroupsGeneralScuba EquipmentScuba LocationsAustralian ScubaUK ScubaDirectoryScuba Clubs |
Scuba Forum / General / January 2007This is a problem with America
" With Michigan's new ban on affirmative action going into effect, and similar ballot initiatives looming in other states, many public universities are scrambling to find race-blind ways to attract more blacks and Hispanics." Do you suppose that the universities don't understand that Michigan's voters specifically don't want anyone to target any group or groups for special attention? Do you suppose that they don't understand that "race-blind" and "to attract more blacks and Hispanics" are not compatible concepts? Do you suppose people that have this much trouble understanding simple English, are the ones that should be educating our country's students? Do you suppose seeing stuff like this set me off? Lee ________________________________ It is useless for sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while wolves remain of a different opinion. WILLIAM RALPH INGE, D. D. 1860-1954 > " With Michigan's new ban on affirmative action going into effect, and > similar ballot initiatives looming in other states, many public universities [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do you suppose that they don't understand that "race-blind" and "to attract > more blacks and Hispanics" are not compatible concepts? Oddly, I don't think they are incompatible. They can seek ways to make the university seem more "student friendly" to blacks and hispanics, but have rasce-blind admissions policies. > Do you suppose people that have this much trouble understanding simple > English, are the ones that should be educating our country's students? Hpefully they'll avoid the example set by the Congressional Black Caucus. A white congressman from a predominantly black district considered joining, to represent district, and was told whites need not apply. Of course, they gave J. C. Watts trouble as well, since, even though he weas black, he's a conservative. > Do you suppose seeing stuff like this set me off? Understandably so. Dennis > Do you suppose that the universities don't understand that Michigan's voters > specifically don't want anyone to target any group or groups for special > attention? Do you suppose that the universities might want a population more diverse than all-white-rich-kids? Unfortunately it's the all-white-rich-kids that are the only ones who can afford elite private college prep schools and tutoring, while the black kids are attempted to gain an education in ill-funded public schools while surviving daily life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit. Michigan is 81% white. The affirmative action measure passed with a 64% majority. > Do you suppose seeing stuff like this set me off? Sure. It probably sets off most white racists. > > Do you suppose that the universities don't understand that Michigan's voters > > specifically don't want anyone to target any group or groups for special [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to gain an education in ill-funded public schools while surviving daily > life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit. I didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit, but neither could my parents afford elite private college prep schools. Somehow, I still managed to go to college. My wife didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit either. Her parent's could afford elite private college prep schools even less than my parents could. Not only did she manage to go to college, but she paid for it all herself. Apparently, you don't think that black are capable of that (working for the things they want). Who's the racist? > I didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit > My wife didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit either That's all you had to say. And, let me guess, you're both white? Do gangbangers stand around selling crack on the street where you live? Is your father in jail? Is your mother a crack addict? It's funny how many more black people from Michigan (or black people in Texas for that matter) than white people from Texas will answer yes to these last three questions. Obviously it's just a coincidence. It has nothing at all to do with the fact that black people were kept as slaves as recently as 1865 and were treated as secondary citizens through the 60s and 70s (and in some parts, through today), if they were treated as citizens at all. In 2004 in the U.S., both black and Hispanic female-headed households had poverty rates near 40% (http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/). That's poverty, not merely the inability to afford prep schools. It's malnutrition, unsafe living conditions, terrible neighborhood. Slums, gangs, graffiti, crack. Is this solely because of the color of their skin, or will you admit there are historical factors which put them there? If the former, you're obviously the racist here; if the latter, why not help make it right with preferential admissions? > > I didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit > > My wife didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit either > > That's all you had to say. And, let me guess, you're both white? We are both white. > Do gangbangers stand around selling crack on the street where you live? On the street where i lived? No In the school I attended? Yep. > Is your father in jail? Unless something has happened in the last 24 hours, I'd say no. > Is your mother a crack addict? If she is, she does a very good job of hiding it. > It's funny > how many more black people from Michigan I wouldn't know. I've never been there. > (or black people in Texas for > that matter) On that count, I highly suspect that you would be wrong, and not just by a little bit.. > than white people from Texas will answer yes to these last > three questions. Obviously it's just a coincidence. It has nothing at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > poverty, not merely the inability to afford prep schools. It's > malnutrition, unsafe living conditions, terrible neighborhood. Yeah, that pretty much describes my wife's living environment growing up. She dad have both of her parents around though, so I guess she doesn't count. > Slums, > gangs, graffiti, crack. It's Funny. My wife deals with those kids every day (mostly Hispanic, but the same situation regardless). As a matter of fact, one of her students has been smoking pot since he was three (at least, that's the claim). She demands the exact same performance out of those kids as she does the rest of the group. Guess what. She gets it. Maybe, just maybe, if we demanded the same performance out of the "minorities" that we demand out of the whites we would get it. Just look at the Asians. The demands they place on themselves are enormous and they tend to do the best of all the groups. It is my opinion that no one race has any better ability to produce greatness than any other. Statistically, the Asians produce better numbers, but that doesn't mean that whites couldn't do just as well if we applied ourselves. Ditto for Hispanics, Blacks, and any other group that you want to bring up. > Is this solely because of the color of their > skin, or will you admit there are historical factors which put them > there? I highly doubt that it has anything to do with their skin color at all. I'm sure that, in some cases, the history you speak of does play a part (maybe even a major one). I'd also guess that the majority of the kids in those situations did not have relatives who were slaves as recently as 1865. I'd also guess that the majority of those kids would get the same opportunities as their white counterparts if they would apply themselves in school and stay away from the "bad element." I'd also guess that their parents don't really instill in them a desire to do well in school ("it never helped me"). I've heard horror stories about kids ever since my wife became a teacher. Some of those kids actually get their acts together and do well. Others don't. Listening to the radio recently, there was a segment about the American dream. The host of the show claimed that you couldn't pull yourselves up by the bootstraps anymore because the only jobs that were available for the entry level person were fast food jobs and similar. I said, that's the problem right there. It's not that you [the host of the show]can't pull yourself up by the bootstraps, it's that you don't understand what the phrase means. Why should a candidate for a university be passed up by a lesser qualified candidate who hasn't put any effort into schooling thus far just because of the lesser qualified applicant's race? That sounds a lot like racism to me. If a white kid gets passed up for admissions to a college by a lesser qualified black kid, what is the end result? The black kid gets to go to college. Good for him. If he does well, then great. If he does poorly, then too bad. Either way, hasn't the white kid been discriminated against? Is it *his* fault that the black kid (may have) had fewer opportunities? > If the former, you're obviously the racist here; if the latter, > why not help make it right with preferential admissions? I completely support preferential admissions. Kids with better grades/test scores and more rounded educations should get preferential treatment. Those who have shown that they can do well in educational environments should be allowed to move on to the next level of education. Why should those who haven't? > I completely support preferential admissions. > Kids with better grades/test scores and more rounded educations should get preferential treatment. > Those who have shown that they can do well in educational environments should be allowed to move on > to the next level of education. Why should those who haven't? As you correctly recognized, this mindset is all part of the self serving mental disease commonly known as "liberal". It's OK to discriminate based on skin color, as long as you discriminate against whites, and it is OK to discrimiate against natural born Americans and legal immigrants. It is also OK to exploit illegal immigrant labor, because you are giving them a better job and wages than they would have had at home, plus it keeps the vegetables cheap and the liberal bathrooms clean. It all makes for good polish on the veneer these idiots cover the holes in their soul with. > it is OK to discrimiate against natural born Americans > and legal immigrants. Unless they are "Native Americans." I find that term so amusing. My family was in this country before there was an America. Nobody, no matter what their race, is more of a native American than I am . . . except when it comes to discrimination. > It is also OK to exploit illegal immigrant labor, because you are giving > them a better job and wages than they would have had at home, plus it > keeps > the vegetables cheap and the liberal bathrooms clean. And the multi million dollar houses built and their laws kept pretty. Lee Hwæt! "Lee Bell" <pleebell2@bellsouth.net>, soðe: > Nobody, no matter what > their race, is more of a native American than I am . Lee's playing Humpty Dumpty.  SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com > And the multi million dollar houses built and their laws kept pretty. It's not so much that their houses are worth that much, but the land itself is going for that much... It might be a bit more expensive to build in SoCal than more normal areas due to earthquake protection, labor costs, and various eco-nut regulations, but it probably isn't extraordinarily more expensive... Hell, just take a look at this listing for Diamond Bar, CA: http://www.realtor.com/Prop/1072335744 Nothing special about it... A typical 4 bedroom, 2.5 bath, 2647 sq-ft, 2 car garage spec type 19-yr-old house with a pool... $799,900... That same type house (albeit perhaps newer) could be had for half that here in Houston in the upper level subdivisions around here or probably $300,000 or less with more land if you got out of the metro area... They're paying a premium over there for their better weather, shaking ground, smaller lots, and periodically flaming landscape... Let's just call it a tofu-surcharge... If you move far enough out of the LA area, house prices start getting a bit more bearable... http://www.realtor.com/Prop/1072748314 $349,750 for a 4 bedroom, 3 bath, 2 car garage, 6-yr-old house in Delano, CA -- about 140 miles from downtown LA... As the realtors like to tell us, it's all about location... The cost of a actually building the house doesn't vary tremendously across the country, so the difference is basically the cost of the land... Some people are willing to pay a premium for a piece of land that gives them a good view, nice weather, golf course access, or whatever... Personally, I think that SoCal land prices are considerably overinflated, but apparently a lot of people either don't or don't know any better... >> I didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit >> My wife didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit >> either > > That's all you had to say. And, let me guess, you're both white? Let me guess, you're going to discriminate against them because they are, right? > Do gangbangers stand around selling crack on the street where you live? Yes > Is your father in jail? No, he chose a different path. He worked his way off the farm and put himself through college too. He chose law enforcement rather than crime. > Is your mother a crack addict? No, she'd dead. She was an alcoholic. > It's funny how many more black people from Michigan (or black people in > Texas for > that matter) than white people from Texas will answer yes to these last > three questions. I don't think it's funny. Why do you? A little prejudiced, perhaps? > Obviously it's just a coincidence. Not at all. It's a life choice. Some chose to work to get ahead and some don't. Our culture, you know, the liberal one you think so highly of, makes it really easy for minorities to chose poorly. It supports those that chose not to work to get ahead. Quite possibly, it is that liberal, give them anything because they are a minority, attitude that is the biggest single obstacle to turning the numbers around. Remember, equal rights, applies both ways. Your free to succeed, but also free to fail. > It has nothing at all to do with the fact that black people were kept as > slaves as recently as 1865. Perhaps it does for all those who alive in 1865. Tell you what, I'll tutor so that they can qualify and help pay for college for every one of them you can find. Deal. > and were treated as secondary citizens through the 60s and 70s (and in > some parts, through today), if they were treated as > citizens at all. Was Michigan a bit center of civil rights turmoil? > In 2004 in the U.S., both black and Hispanic female-headed households had > poverty rates near 40%. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > latter, why not help make it right with preferential > admissions? Interestingly, we have programs for people in poverty, black and white. Strangely, by far, the majority of the people taking advantage of those programs are not white Anglo Saxon protestants. Even more strangely, by far, the majority of the funding for those programs comes from people who are. It's not because of the color of their skin at all. It's because those that still live in those areas did not do what it takes to get out of them. Plenty of blacks and Hispanics did, so many that they have long been a majority in pretty much all of South Florida, so many that the city I grew up in, and the cities on all four sides of that city, are almost completely Hispanic. In your part of the country, there are other factors, such as recent and illegal immigration. How many of the Hispanics you're talking about are first generation, fleeing poverty in their own country in favor of opportunities in ours. How many that are here and still in poverty are victims of those people you used to tell us had to have illegal immigrant help if they were to continue to be profitable without charging other white people, including those in California, more for the services they were too lazy, or to cheap to pay a fair price for? Two wrongs do not make a right. It is no more right to discriminate for minorities than it is to discriminate against them. This is supposed to be a land of equal rights and equal opportunity. It's OK with me if you choose to give away your opportunity and rights, but leave mine alone. Lee > I didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit, but > neither could my parents > afford elite private college prep schools. Somehow, I still managed to go > to college. I did grow up in the urban area of Miami. I don't think there's ever been a TV show called Detroit Vice. My family wasn't rich either. I paid my own way thorugh college, making money the old fashion way. I worked for it. As a matter of fact, a good portion of the time I was in college I worked for minorities, some black, more Hispanic, you know, the ones Greg thought had no chance and called me a racist for not wanting to take a back seat to. > My wife didn't have to survive life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit > either. Her parent's could [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > think that black are > capable of that (working for the things they want). > Who's the racist? The ADL. > > Do you suppose that the universities don't understand that Michigan's voters > > specifically don't want anyone to target any group or groups for special [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to gain an education in ill-funded public schools while surviving daily > life in the dangerous ghettos of Detroit. Well, good to see you acknowledge theres a problem with public schools. There's always a school voucher program, to try to give puyblic schools competition, but most liberals are against vouchers. So all blacks, hispanics, oh heck, non-whites, are poor in your view? After all "all-white-rich-kids" who can afford "prep schools and tutoring". Here's an idea - use economic status :-) > Michigan is 81% white. The affirmative action measure passed with a > 64% majority. And how many of that 81% white voted? > > Do you suppose seeing stuff like this set me off? > > Sure. It probably sets off most white racists. Dennis On Jan 26, 10:04 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > Here's an idea - use economic status :-) Brilliant idea. Except that you'd then only let po' folk in and no one would be paying any tuition. Priviledged white kids should have a chance too, but there's no reason it can't be made a bit more competitive for them since they've had all the advantages of being white. Sort of like handicapping in golf. I never hear of the anti-affirmative action people protesting golf. > On Jan 26, 10:04 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > white. Sort of like handicapping in golf. I never hear of the > anti-affirmative action people protesting golf. The black kids/po folks I wnt to school with had every advantage I had. > The black kids/po folks I wnt to school with had every advantage I had. If they didn't have white skins, you're completely wrong. >>The black kids/po folks I wnt to school with had every advantage I had. > > If they didn't have white skins, you're completely wrong. no, 'fraid not Greg - every advantage I had > > If they didn't have white skins, you're completely wrong. What a f.cking tool. > no, 'fraid not Greg - every advantage I had So I guess Oprah, Bill Cosby, Condoleeza Rice, Colin Powell, Halle Berry, Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, John L. Estrada, Michael Jordan, Ronald A. Williams, Ann M. Fudge, Franklin D. Raines, Charles Phillips Jr., John W. Thompson, Kenneth I. Chenault, Richard D. Parsons, Clarence Otis, Alwyn Lewis, E. Stanley O'Neal, Richard D. Parsons, Clifton R. Wharton Jr., Dianna Ross, Etta James, BB King, Albert Collins, 50 Cent, Ice T, Ice Cube, Snoop Dog, etc., were unable to do for themselves without a hand up from the self serving condescending bigotry of rich white LA liberals. I am sure they would all be interested in hearing about how their success depended upon liberal white boys from LA recognizing their plight, carrying the guidon and fighting the man to give them the break they needed to be who they are. SignaturePolitical Correctness A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end. > On Jan 26, 10:04 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > white. Sort of like handicapping in golf. I never hear of the > anti-affirmative action people protesting golf. Handicapping in golf is based on ability, not race. http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/handicapsummary.htm Are you saying, for the record, that minorities are inferior to "priviledged white kids"? So, to carry the "handicapping" through education, you;d take x number of test scores, calculate their handicap, and they get to add this to further tests. If you wanted to do that, ok, after all it applies to everyone, equally. Realistically, thugh, someone can decide to study, or no, as they see fit. Still, I do think we should be trying to judge folks based on the content of ther character (there he goes with that word again) rather than skin color. Dennis > Are you saying, for the record, that minorities are inferior to "priviledged > white kids"? Yes, he is. Unless he is calling a white person, especially a gun rights advocate, a redneck or trailer trash, against whom he also freely practices and advocates oppression, discrimination and prejudice. If you took him at what he posts, only black, native American or hispanic kids can come from poor homes, broken families, be the offspring of drug addicts, alcoholics or other "parents", and without a helping hand from discriminatory, self serving "legislation" dreamed up by rich white liberal folks in LA, they have no chance in life. rec.scuba's resident pussy "Scott" <pugetsounddiver@gmail.com>, whined: > Unless he is calling a white person, especially a gun rights > advocate, a redneck or trailer trash, against whom he also > freely practices and advocates oppression, Scotty's doing his impression of a Monty Python Frenchman. "Help! Help! I'm being oppressed!" <snicker> SignaturePosted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com On Jan 27, 1:19 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > Handicapping in golf is based on ability, not race. Handicapping in golf is meant to put players on an equal footing, since otherwise, the average skilled golfer will be more likely to succeed (i.e. win) than the lesser skilled golfer. > Are you saying, for the record, that minorities are inferior to "priviledged > white kids"? I am saying, for the record, that the average white student is more likely to succeed in school than the average black student. That's obviously borne out by plenty of statistics, BTW, but you're welcome to try to find any studies that demonstrate I'm wrong. > Still, I do think we should be trying to judge folks based on the content of > ther character (there he goes with that word again) rather than skin color. Character can be faked. Look at politicians, for example. But it's harder to fake skin color, though I did see a movie once where the guy dyed his skin to get into Harvard or something like that. <snip> > > Are you saying, for the record, that minorities are inferior to "priviledged > > white kids"? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > obviously borne out by plenty of statistics, BTW, but you're welcome > to try to find any studies that demonstrate I'm wrong. So rather than try to handicap based on ability, you'd choose to just fixate on race. There are others who who come from poor homes as well, and don't do well at school. But that's ok, since clearly they have moeny & power, even though they're poor, and in the same neighborhood as the blacks. > > Still, I do think we should be trying to judge folks based on the content of > > ther character (there he goes with that word again) rather than skin color. > > Character can be faked. Look at politicians, for example. But it's > harder to fake skin color, though I did see a movie once where the guy > dyed his skin to get into Harvard or something like that. So to heck with MKLK"s dream, since "character can be faked"? Keep judgig folks based on their skin color? Dennis > On Jan 27, 1:19 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > harder to fake skin color, though I did see a movie once where the guy > dyed his skin to get into Harvard or something like that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Like_Me http://www.tysknews.com/LiteStuff/coyote_sues_acme.htm <hat tip to Burt> > On Jan 27, 1:19 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > since otherwise, the average skilled golfer will be more likely to > succeed (i.e. win) than the lesser skilled golfer. See what I mean. "I'm the better golfer, but you might beat me because my handicap is higher." (BTW, I'm not actually saying I'm the better golfer, I highly doubt that is the case. Also, no, I don't hate golf just because I'm not any good. I'm not any good at basketball either, but I still like it). What kind of real sport does that? Football? nope Soccer? nope Basketball? nope Wrestling (the "real" kind)? nope Baseball? nope Swimming? nope hell, you can go so far as to include that stupid new olympic sport where the people slide a weight on ice (curling?)... nope. The purpose of handicapping in golf is so that your golf friends will still play golf with you even if you're much better than they are. Period. > See what I mean. "I'm the better golfer, but you might beat me because my handicap is higher." Exactly. But do you hear golfers whine about handicapping like some here whine about affirmative action? > The purpose of handicapping in golf is so that your golf friends will still play golf with you even > if you're much better than they are. Period. If forced equality is important on the playing field to allow people to get along when they're just having fun anyway, it's that much more important in real life. How are we all supposed to get along as equals when it's the white people that still own all the plantations, whips, and chains? >>See what I mean. "I'm the better golfer, but you might beat me because my handicap is higher." > > Exactly. But do you hear golfers whine about handicapping like some > here whine about affirmative action? Golf is a game. No one cares who wins. Bullfighting is a sport. The bull dies unless he disembowels you. Both participants care who wins. Affirmative action dumbs down the sport of life to the point that it's a game. No one cares who wins, we're all identical servants of the tax machine. Luckily, we have the gangs to make life a sport again. >>> See what I mean. "I'm the better golfer, but you might beat me >>> because my handicap is higher." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Golf is a game. No one cares who wins. You would be very wrong > Bullfighting is a sport. The bull dies unless he disembowels you. Both > participants care who wins. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Luckily, we have the gangs to make life a sport again. > > See what I mean. "I'm the better golfer, but you might beat me because my handicap is higher." > > Exactly. But do you hear golfers whine about handicapping like some > here whine about affirmative action? Handicapping in golf is based on ability. The same calculation is applied (see the link I provided earlier). > > The purpose of handicapping in golf is so that your golf friends will still play golf with you even > > if you're much better than they are. Period. > > If forced equality is important on the playing field to allow people > to get along when they're just having fun anyway, it's that much more > important in real life. How are we all supposed to get along as But you're not leveling the playing field. Your "leveling" is not based on ability, but rather based on race. > equals when it's the white people that still own all the plantations, > whips, and chains? That's not the case, and you should know that. Dennis > > See what I mean. "I'm the better golfer, but you might beat me because my handicap is higher." > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > equals when it's the white people that still own all the plantations, > whips, and chains? My point is that it's not important on the playing field. How many times do you see handicaps discussed at, oh, say, a Master's tournament? Handicapping (in Golf) accomplishes two purposes. First, it allows poor players to have a good time while playing with better players (even though they are outclassed, they can still pretend that they're better than they are). Second, it forces the better player to play as well as possible to remain competitive. I don't really think that golf handicapping is the best parallel to your argument anyway. It's not like the universities are currently handicapping your SAT scores based on your academic performance. In fact, if anything, it's exactly the opposite. The better you do in school, the less well you can do on your standardized tests and still get in. As a matter of fact, I can't even think of a decent parallel to draw between this conversation and golf. Maybe if your handicap was determined by how many drinks it took to get drunk when you hit the nineteenth hole? > On Jan 26, 10:04 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > white. Sort of like handicapping in golf. I never hear of the > anti-affirmative action people protesting golf. I hate golf. IMO, it was a horribly conceived social experiment that has corrupted thousands. While I respect the right of the people involved to remain involved, I refuse to support anything about it. > While I respect the right of the people involved to remain involved, I refuse to support anything > about it. Not to mention the fact that it's always the white ball that gets smacked with the club. I'm surprised Lee hasn't brought that up. Why can't a black ball or a brown ball ever get smacked? Certainly that's reverse discrimination too. > > While I respect the right of the people involved to remain involved, I refuse to support anything > > about it. > > Not to mention the fact that it's always the white ball that gets > smacked with the club. I'm surprised Lee hasn't brought that up. Why > can't a black ball or a brown ball ever get smacked? Probably because it's easier to see a white ball than a brown or black ball. You can actually find golf balls in a wide array of colors these days. I'm sure that you could find some that were black or brown if that's really what your heart desired. For instance: http://www.best4balls.com/product_info.php?cPath=93_99&products_id=164 > Probably because it's easier to see a white ball than a brown or black ball. Exactly. Just one more reason why minorities are underrepresented in the ranks of professionals and executives: They're harder to see at job fairs and group interviews. I suggest that in addition to affirmative action, we also equip them with reflectors and bells. > You can actually find golf balls in a wide array of colors these days. I'm sure that you could find > some that were black or brown if that's really what your heart desired. Sure, and a few good employers go out of their way to hire minorities. But it's easier for all when it's government-mandated. I really like this golf analogy. >>Probably because it's easier to see a white ball than a brown or black ball. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > I really like this golf analogy. Not really Every company I ahve ever worked for had NO problem hiring the most qualified for the job irregradless or race, sex, or religion. Seems they just wanted to see the company aspire to be the best and promoted the best. I have never seen racial discrimination, I have seen sexual discrimination where a terrible woman was promoted to a project leader and then to dirextor because she was boning the boss. She didn't last long when the wife found out then the company was bought out. I've seen companies try to night fire a black employee because they were afraid of the repercussions - this was after he was found in a bathroom stall with another man. The other man was a customer. Golf is really a bad analogy. Life is better - get off your lazy a.s - go to school - get an education - learn a skill - get a job - work hard and show up for work on a regular basis. People really don't have family emergencies every day and night do they? How many times fo their grandmothers or Aunts die? >>While I respect the right of the people involved to remain involved, I refuse to support anything >>about it. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can't a black ball or a brown ball ever get smacked? Certainly that's > reverse discrimination too. There are plenty of colored balls in golf - the color is picked because it is easier to see. There is no discrimination - you want to hit a black or brown ball = have at it >> While I respect the right of the people involved to remain involved, I >> refuse to support anything >> about it. > Not to mention the fact that it's always the white ball that gets > smacked with the club. I'm surprised Lee hasn't brought that up. Why > can't a black ball or a brown ball ever get smacked? Certainly that's > reverse discrimination too. As a matter of fact, many balls of color are smacked. It's not just white ones. Besides, getting smacked in the balls is not something I'd strive for equality in. Lee On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:15:56 -0800, in <1169831756.400485.59570@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Greg Mossman wrote: > Michigan is 81% white. The affirmative action measure passed with a > 64% majority. So, the 19% of the population that are black live entirely in Detroit? On Jan 26, 12:31 pm, Grumman-581 <grumman...@DIE-SPAMMER-SCUM-gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:15:56 -0800, in > <1169831756.400485.59...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Greg Mossman > wrote: > > > Michigan is 81% white. The affirmative action measure passed with a > > 64% majority. > So, the 19% of the population that are black live entirely in Detroit? The 14.3% that are black, you mean. The world isn't just black and white, even in Michigan. Detroit, which only constitutes 9% of Michigan's population, is 81.6% black, 12.3% white. Only 11% of those 25 and older have bachelor's degrees or higher. 26% of the population lives below the poverty line. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html 26% of the population > lives below the poverty line. > > http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html So is it the location or the population that causes this? I am not sure from reading your post... Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ On Jan 26, 1:35 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > Greg Mossman wrote: 26% of the population > > > lives below the poverty line. > > >http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2622000.html > So is it the location or the population that causes this? I am not sure > from reading your post... Who knows? "Despite the big gains in auto work during World War II, blacks were still more likely to hold unskilled jobs than whites. They were concentrated in the least desirable auto industry jobs (for example, the foundries and paint rooms became overwhelmingly black departments in many auto plants). And blacks--because they were at the end of the seniority line--were especially vulnerable to layoffs and unemployment when auto plants reorganized work or shut down." "The great irony of postwar auto industry history was that just as blacks found themselves on the first rung of the ladder of economic mobility in the auto industry, that rung was cut away by decentralization and automation." "By 1970, about one in five Detroit auto workers was black, a sizeable increase from 1960, when they held only about sixteen percent of auto industry jobs. Despite these gains, the racial hierarchy of auto assembly plants remained deeply entrenched. Relatively few blacks worked in the well-paying skilled trades; even fewer worked as foremen and superintendents; and hardly any had white-collar positions." http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Casestudy/R_Casestudy5.htm > On Jan 26, 1:35 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > http://www.autolife.umd.umich.edu/Race/R_Casestudy/R_Casestudy5.htm 2 things: Did those referenced "blacks" expect the automakers to educate them? Or did they educate themselves and then were denied jobs based on color? And do you have any data from more recently an approximately 30+years ago? Like from say 2004 or so? Something that is not historical, but more present day? You seem to hold guilt for what happened in the past. I don't. THose things happened before the generation to which I belong was able to control any part of the decisions that were made. Currently, I see little effort to racially bias the population in the workplace. Most employers simply want someone who will be productive and who will show up on time, not under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and who is qualified to perform the tasks that are part of the job. Few care about color. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ On Jan 26, 2:25 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > Few care about color. No. Few are of color. > On Jan 26, 2:25 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: > >>Few care about color. > > No. Few are of color. I for one don't give a hoot about color or gender - just do the job >> Few care about color. > No. Few are of color. A racist remark if I ever saw one. All are of color. Some just want to choose which color is favored (you). I prefer equality, another of the rights our country intended to guarantee. Lee > >> Few care about color. > > No. Few are of color.A racist remark if I ever saw one. All are of color. Some just want to > choose which color is favored (you). I prefer equality, another of the > rights our country intended to guarantee. Your preferred "equality" is the status quo, where the white man is rich and powerful and the minority is ever trying to catch up for years of slavery and oppression. That's hardly equal in my view. >> >> Few care about color. >> > No. Few are of color. >> A racist remark if I ever saw one. All are of color. Some just want to >> choose which color is favored (you). I prefer equality, another of the >> rights our country intended to guarantee. > Your preferred "equality" is the status quo . . . Not at all. The status quo is to give priority to some on the basis of race, color and other discriminatory factors. That's your preference, not mine. I believe in equal opportunity to succeed or to fail, without discriminatory bias. > Where the white man is rich and powerful and the minority is ever trying > to catch up for years of slavery and oppression. You're the only one that has said those words. You're the only one that has consistently supported the continued abuse of illegal immigrants, paid substandard wages, to keep the cost of your goods and services low. By the way, I'm a minority in my own home market. Hispanic, black and Jewish people all outnumber me. I'm sorry you don't think that I, as a minority, deserves equal treatment because I happen to be white, but I can't say that I'm surprised. Liberals have been denying my rights, in favor of people of other color or origin, for most of my life. Lee >>>>Few care about color. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > rich and powerful and the minority is ever trying to catch up for > years of slavery and oppression. That's hardly equal in my view. how many generations ago was the slavery? How many generations ago was the civil rights movement? Your argument holds no water. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ > how many generations ago was the slavery? > > How many generations ago was the civil rights movement? > > Your argument holds no water. http://tinyurl.com/2yb4l9 “The principle feature of American liberalism is sanctimoniousness. By loudly denouncing all bad things -- war and hunger and date rape -- liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.” - P.J. O'Rourke By loudly denouncing all bad things -- war and hunger and date rape -- liberals testify to their own terrific goodness. More important, they promote themselves to membership in a self-selecting elite of those who care deeply about such things. It's a kind of natural aristocracy, and the wonderful thing about this aristocracy is that you don't have to be brave, smart, strong or even lucky to join it, you just have to be liberal.” isn't this the JOF mantra / theme? It sure explains a lot about him. and it requires no risk or responsibility. On Jan 27, 9:20 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > How many generations ago was the civil rights movement? How many generations were black people kept as slaves in the country? How many generations were black people treated as second-class people? When we've spent just as long righting the wrongs, then complain. But it's only been a few years since the civil rights movement and we haven't begun to scratch the surface of redress. > On Jan 27, 9:20 am, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > complain. But it's only been a few years since the civil rights > movement and we haven't begun to scratch the surface of redress. SO you are saying that the black people, because their ancestors were once slaves (distant ancestors at that), cannot compete on a level paying field (or even one tilted in their favor)? Why do you think that black people are so inferior? The ones that I know are as capable as you or I am. They need no special privileges. They will succeed because they will strive for success. Somehow, I get the feeling that you don't think very highly of black people, and think that they cannot get along without your brand of help. Signature“TAANSTAFL” ____________________________________________________________________________ "A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; The simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences." - Proverbs 22:3 ____________________________________________________________________________ On Jan 27, 2:43 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> wrote: > SO you are saying that the black people, because their ancestors were > once slaves (distant ancestors at that), cannot compete on a level > paying field (or even one tilted in their favor)? No, I'm saying it's not a level playing field because their distant ancestors were once slaves and their recent ancestors considered second-class citizens. > Why do you think that black people are so inferior? The ones that I know > are as capable as you or I am. They need no special privileges. They > will succeed because they will strive for success. If you believe their chances for success are equal to any white person, why aren't their representations in colleges and the ranks of executives and professionals proportionate to their percentage of the general population? > Somehow, I get the feeling that you don't think very highly of black > people, and think that they cannot get along without your brand of help. Obviously they cannot, since their representations in colleges and the ranks of executives and professionals still aren't proportionate to their percentage of the general population, though the numbers were getting better before the racists came along to undo beneficial affirmative action policies. > No, I'm saying it's not a level playing field because their distant > ancestors were once slaves and their recent ancestors considered > second-class citizens. Some were, some weren't. Are we now ignoring all groups except those who are descendants of slaves? Is there a registry somehwere that lists who they are, that lets us separate those that are from the millions that have immigrated from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica, the Bahamas or any of the thousands of other countries that have significant populations of "people of color?" > If you believe their chances for success are equal to any white person, > why aren't their representations in colleges and the ranks of > executives and professionals proportionate to their percentage of the > general population? I love it when you argue both sides of the same issue. How about because they did not make the effort to become qualified? Several people here have told you that they didn't have the financial backing to go to a good college either. I've told you that I worked my way through college, paying for it myself, out of the wages I made working for the very people you're saying never had a chance. I did it because it was the only way I was going to get what I wanted. I'm disinclined to favor those that want the same for themselves but are unwilling to do what it takes to earn it. We make our choices and we suffer, or enjoy the consequences. > Obviously they cannot, since their representations in colleges and the > ranks of executives and professionals still aren't > proportionate to their percentage of the general population, though the > numbers were getting better before the racists came along > to undo beneficial affirmative action policies. Racist. > Some were, some weren't. Are we now ignoring all groups except those who > are descendants of slaves? Is there a registry somehwere that lists who > they are, that lets us separate those that are from the millions that have > immigrated from Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Cuba, Jamaica, the Bahamas or > any of the thousands of other countries that have significant populations of > "people of color?" The system isn't perfect. It's based on skin color, surnames, and whatever people want to call themselves if they're of mixed race. And it's not just ex-slaves, obviously, though it's my understanding that the black people from the Caribbean islands you mention were originally brought there or elsewhere as slaves from Africa. Plus the U.S. has a long history of discriminating against plenty of minorities besides black people. Chinese enslaved by the railroads, Native Americans forced onto reservations, Mexicans kicked off land they once owned and are now forced to mow our lawns. We white folk owe a lot of payback to a lot of people who we stepped on to get where we are today. > > If you believe their chances for success are equal to any white person, > > why aren't their representations in colleges and the ranks of > > executives and professionals proportionate to their percentage of the > > general population? > I love it when you argue both sides of the same issue. I'm really not, but I love it when you get so confused that you think I am. > How about because > they did not make the effort to become qualified? So you're saying that "they" (i.e., minorities) just don't make "the effort" because they're minorities? Why is that, some genetic laziness factor or what? > Several people here have > told you that they didn't have the financial backing to go to a good college > either. It's not just about financial backing. > I've told you that I worked my way through college, paying for it > myself, out of the wages I made working for the very people you're saying > never had a chance. I did it because it was the only way I was going to get > what I wanted. I'm disinclined to favor those that want the same for > themselves but are unwilling to do what it takes to earn it. We make our > choices and we suffer, or enjoy the consequences. Do you really believe that a much higher proportion of black children versus white children prefer to be born in gang-infested ghettoes to unwed mothers living in poverty? > On Jan 27, 2:43 pm, dazed and confuzzed <dedmann@comcast_remove.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > getting better before the racists came along to undo beneficial > affirmative action policies. Perhaps, it has nothing to do with their race. Maybe it has to do with a prevalent culture that doesn't think it has to work to get the things it wants because someone is willing to give it to them. Maybe not. However, you can't just assume that the reason is merely on of the possible causes because it fits your ideology (as much as you might like to). For instance, my wife was talking to one of her students the other day and asked this young lady what she wanted to do when she grew up. The students asked her what she meant so my wife asked her what kind of job she wanted. Her response was along the lines of "I don't need a job. My mom [single parent household] doesn't have a job and she does just fine." There was more to the conversation, but the result was that the kid actually started to see that if she owuld apply herself, she might have a better life than her mother. That kid is doing much better in school now. Thankfully, my wife was able to get her moved out of the Detroit ghetto... wait, no, that didn't happen. Do you think that it was discrimination that was going to keep this kid from applying herself in school, or do you think it was the attitude of "why should I work when the government will support me anyway"? How many kids (white, black, hispanic, asian, or whatever) grow up in similar circumstances and end up doing nothing with their lives? How often do you hear of someone from that kind of background (Detroit ghetto) breaking out of the cycle? You probably don't hear about it very often, but don't the occasions where you do show you that it can be done. They may have it harder than I did, but nobody ever promised it would be easy. >>>>Few care about color. >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > rich and powerful and the minority is ever trying to catch up for > years of slavery and oppression. That's hardly equal in my view. but slavery ended 142 years ago - it is time that 'they' move on. I never had a slave, my parents never had a slave and as far as I know neither did my grandparents or great grandparents. Being of Irish descent my family probably has slave labor closer to present generations than any black I know I could justify slave reparations to first or second generation slaves - but it isn't about justice - it is about $$$$$ >> So is it the location or the population that causes this? I am not sure >> from reading your post... > Who knows? Perhaps you should before you begin advocating disadvantage for the non minority population to fix a problem you don't understand in the first place. Lee > On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:15:56 -0800, in > <1169831756.400485.59570@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com>, Greg Mossman [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > So, the 19% of the population that are black live entirely in Detroit? No. They live entirely in the ghettos in Detroit. > No. They live entirely in the ghettos in Detroit. Isn't that redundant? <snicker> Detroit is one of those area where the metro area might expand to the point of surrounding the previous small towns nearby, but it apparently cannot annex them like you see here in Texas (especially around Houston)... > Michigan is 81% white. The affirmative action measure passed with a > 64% majority. But only 12% were intelligent enough to rejeect the measure on its merits. The other 24% were totally confused. esg >> Do you suppose that the universities don't understand that Michigan's >> voters >> specifically don't want anyone to target any group or groups for special >> attention? > Do you suppose that the universities might want a population more > diverse than all-white-rich-kids? Maybe. I'm more sure, however, that the people of Selma didn't wan't black people eating in their restaurants, going to their schools, or sitting in the front of their busses. They didn't get to discriminate either. > Unfortunately it's the all-white-rich-kids that are the only ones who can > afford elite private college prep schools and tutoring, while > the black kids are attempted to gain an education in ill-funded public > schools while surviving daily life in the dangerous ghettos of > Detroit. What century are you living in. I think you might want to take a look around at who's makeing how much. Start with your professional sports teams, then move on to the movie and television industries. > Sure. It probably sets off most white racists. You mean like those that can't see that it's just as discriminatory to give the advantage to the black, Hispanic or Jewish kids as it used to be to give it to the white ones? Lee > What century are you living in. I think you might want to take a look > around at who's makeing how much. Start with your professional sports > teams, then move on to the movie and television industries. Professional sports teams? How many professional athletes are there in total? How many black boys really do end up playing in the NBA? How many black girls really do become as rich as Oprah? I'm talking about real people. Everyday people. You might work for lots of minorities, but that's because you work for the government. The government has always led the way in anti-discrimination policies and it's in the public eye. It's much harder to apply discrimination laws in the private sector. > You mean like those that can't see that it's just as discriminatory to give > the advantage to the black, Hispanic or Jewish kids as it used to be to give > it to the white ones? But the white ones still have the advantage. Because of years of oppressing minorities, the white people have all the money and all the power and they still wield it unfairly. That's what you refuse to see. > > What century are you living in. I think you might want to take a look > > around at who's makeing how much. Start with your professional sports [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > oppressing minorities, the white people have all the money and all the > power and they still wield it unfairly. That's what you refuse to see. So you'll be giviing up your "money & power" to some poor deserving monirities? Dennis >>>What century are you living in. I think you might want to take a look >>>around at who's makeing how much. Start with your professional sports [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>total? How many black boys really do end up playing in the NBA? How >>many black girls really do become as rich as Oprah? > Dennis solution to unemployment - expand the nba to 27,000 teams but then our prisons could handle all the gangbangers (I think they are having trouble now) On Jan 26, 7:57 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote: > So you'll be giviing up your "money & power" to some poor deserving > monirities? I did. They took my spots at Harvard and Yale law schools, making me resort to USC instead. Had I gone to Yale, I would be running for president in 2008. Instead, Obama's running and I'll probably send him some more money so he can beat his white opponents in the primary (unless I decide to give the money to Hillary instead for the cause of women's liberation). >On Jan 26, 7:57 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> >wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >(unless I decide to give the money to Hillary instead for the cause of >women's liberation). hy do you want to see another Black man shot ? > On Jan 26, 7:57 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (unless I decide to give the money to Hillary instead for the cause of > women's liberation). more wasted money as n money you would have spent at Yale or Harvard >> So you'll be giviing up your "money & power" to some poor deserving >> monirities? > I did. They took my spots at Harvard and Yale law schools, making me > resort to USC instead. I'm confused. Which is that, your money or your power? > Had I gone to Yale, I would be running for president in 2008. Instead, > Obama's running and I'll probably send him > some more money so he can beat his white opponents in the primary (unless > I decide to give the money to Hillary instead for the > cause of women's liberation). So, you favor the majority over the minority. You do know that women are a majority in our population and in the work force, right? You also know that, historically, it's been white women who have taken advantage of their position, to the exclusion of both men and women of all other ethnic groups, right? Lee > So, you favor the majority over the minority. You do know that women are a > majority in our population and in the work force, right? You also know > that, historically, it's been white women who have taken advantage of their > position, to the exclusion of both men and women of all other ethnic groups, > right? You just can't stop whining about being a poor oppressed white male, can you? "Majority in our work force" means majority of secretaries, admin. assistants, and cleaning crew. In fact, minorities are the majority of our office workers in class-A office towers, if you only take your poll at 10 p.m. when the cleaning crews are busy working. >> So, you favor the majority over the minority. You do know that women are >> a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> groups, >> right? > You just can't stop whining about being a poor oppressed white male, > can you? Not me. I got up off my butt and made something of myself despite discrimination against me. > "Majority in our work force" means majority of secretaries, admin. > assistants, and cleaning crew. Funny, there's not a single cleaning crew working for my office and the point you missed is the proportion of promotions granted to white women. Promotion as in not secretaries, assistants or cleaning crew. One of us has had direct access to the information. The other's spouting the usual liberal crap with no foundation in fact at all. > In fact, minorities are the majority of our office workers in class-A > office towers, if you only take your poll at 10 p.m. when the cleaning > crews are busy working. My poll was of qualfied professionals, with college degrees. Since you seem to want to talk about cleaning crews, how does it happen that they are all minorities? Are there no poor whites where you live? Are whites represented in workforce you keep referring to in the same proportion as they are in the population. Could it possibly be discrimination or do you think it's just because all whites are lazy, stupid good for nothings? Lee > Not me. I got up off my butt and made something of myself despite > discrimination against me. See? If more white people were like you, they'd stop sitting around listening to Rush whine about the plight of the white male, and they'd make something of themselves. Take advantage of all the perks that white males enjoy over the downtrodden females and minorities. > Since you seem to want to talk about cleaning crews, how does it happen that > they are all minorities? Are there no poor whites where you live? Are > whites represented in workforce you keep referring to in the same proportion > as they are in the population. Could it possibly be discrimination or do > you think it's just because all whites are lazy, stupid good for nothings? This is L.A. The minorities are the majority here. >> Not me. I got up off my butt and made something of myself despite >> discrimination against me. > See? If more white people were like you, they'd stop sitting around > listening to Rush whine about the plight of the white male, > and they'd make something of themselves. Absolutely. I have precisely the same degree of sympathy for all people who have not bothered to do what it takes to get ahead, not much. I don't discriminate. Why are you? >> Since you seem to want to talk about cleaning crews, how does it happen >> that [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> you think it's just because all whites are lazy, stupid good for >> nothings? > This is L.A. The minorities are the majority here. They are here too. Lee > >> Not me. I got up off my butt and made something of myself despite > >> discrimination against me. > > See? If more white people were like you, they'd stop sitting around > > listening to Rush whine about the plight of the white male, > > and they'd make something of themselves. > Absolutely. I have precisely the same degree of sympathy for all people who > have not bothered to do what it takes to get ahead, not much. I don't > discriminate. Why are you? Because I understand that "what it takes to get ahead" is vastly different over different population groups. > On Jan 26, 7:57 pm, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > (unless I decide to give the money to Hillary instead for the cause of > women's liberation). You could give it to Condi and support both causes. >>What century are you living in. I think you might want to take a look >>around at who's makeing how much. Start with your professional sports [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > total? How many black boys really do end up playing in the NBA? How > many black girls really do become as rich as Oprah? The blacks want equal representation in the corporate world compared to the representation in communities Tell me, Greg, what is the balck population in the NBA compared to the city they play in? Tell me the same about football. Then tell me why is the black population so out of whack in baseball, golf, and hockey > I'm talking about real people. Everyday people. You might work for > lots of minorities, but that's because you work for the government. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > oppressing minorities, the white people have all the money and all the > power and they still wield it unfairly. That's what you refuse to see. > Professional sports teams? How many professional athletes are there in > total? How many black boys really do end up playing in the NBA? How > many black girls really do become as rich as Oprah? No black "boys" end up playing in the NBA. They're all men. Boys is a racist term. Girls isn't much better. Darned if I know. I figured you'd have the statistics right at hand. You're the one claiming they are so disadvantaged, not me. I'm the one that favors race and religion n |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message