Abortion Kills Mostly Blacks

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]Professor X wrote:
doubleh wrote:

It is NOT “dead”. It simply doesn’t have anywhere near the same power that it had decades ago. If it were truly “dead”, I wouldn’t have to literally explain why using race as an indicator of behavior in reference to minorities is a part of the problem.[/quote]

I said systematic racism, meaning (for example) that you’ll never see blacks nowadays get less pay for the same work. And you are misinterpreting the study.

But this has NOTHING to do with social programs. Weren’t we talking about abortion rates and socio-economic status among blacks? Are you actually suggesting that the creation of government social programs is what caused the cultural shift away from racism, allowing Obama to be elected??? Wow, no wonder you’re a liberal. You put WAAAAAY too much faith in government.

Immaterial. These were actions taken 40+ years ago. I wasn’t alive then so I can’t pretend to have an informed opinion as to whether their inception was a good or bad idea AT THE TIME. But I know where I stand now, and it can be summed up in 5 words: Big Government is Bad News.

202

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

What happens to whites that band together to fight for their race?

Why would whites in America need to ban together to fight for their race? When were whites in general oppressed in this country?

How com guys like Malcom X get institutionalized as great civil rights leaders, though he espoused segregation and a hatred for all white people for most of his life?

You are correct there is a double standard, but it is the opposite of what you think.

It is clear that you think about as deeply as a puddle of water. You may want to fix that.

LOL @ whites in America fighting for their race.

Now, if we were to discuss certain ethnic groups who may also qualify as white who are fighting for actually being oppressed, that is different, but the idea that majority whites in this country need to fight oppression is so comical it needs its own SNL skit.[/quote]

I never said anything was necessary or not one way or the other. You were insinuating an uneven application of what is racist that was unfair to blacks. You couldn’t be more completely wrong.

Why is there a BET and not an WET? What would happen if white people tried to start and label a white television network?

Blacks get free passes on promoting their race, justified or not.

So you are saying the current double standard isn’t enough?

203

Oh, if only you had lived in California for the past 30 years…Of course, the same thing that happened to us happened to the blacks as well.

204

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
So can anybody else who cares to learn from the past.

Call me crazy, but I don’t think Obama is going to mess up that bad.

I have never once stated that Obama can end this country or knock the Earth out of orbit in one term. What he can do with the gleeful alliance of other America hating leftists in the congress is destroy what’s left of the economy by mass unconstitutional federalization, neuter our national security, stifle constitutional liberties like the right to bear arms and freedom of speech and a list of other anti American nanny state policy moves in the short term.

In the long term he can saddle us with bleeding heart “empathetic” SC justices who have no more regard with our rule of law than he does not to mention plastering the who bureaucracy with abominable lower court judges.

The damage can be undone, but the fact of someone like him winning a presidential election in the first place does not instill confidence in the discernment of the populous.

This guy does not believe in the way of life bequeathed to us by our founders and does in fact embrace the ideology of those we have called enemies. Here comes the BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH, but that’s how it is. There is a line somewhere between more liberal American politics and those of our enemies. He and some others have crossed it. Biden a long long time ago. [/quote]

Great post.

205

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
belligerent wrote:
Nothing against the thread starter but this just looks bad in conjunction with all the other race threads and the Obama threads… shit is getting out of control.

They don’t see that. There were nowhere near this many threads showing pure hatred for Kerry or any other candidate for the last 8 years I’ve been on this forum.

Then again, they have the benefit of doing things like that and then claiming there is no racial bias at all.

I personally dislike Kerry as much as Obama.

With you being an African American talking about Obama, do you think that makes you more, or less biased on the issue?[/quote]

Ditto. And I didn’t post here when Kerry ran.

206

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Why is there a BET and not an WET?
[/quote]

Come on…is there a serious need to explain this?? BUT you may be surprised at how black people really feel about BET now. Its junk just like MTV. Ironically,MTV was criticized as being “WET” in the early days.

207

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Why is there a BET and not an WET?

Come on…is there a serious need to explain this?? BUT you may be surprised at how black people really feel about BET now. Its junk just like MTV. Ironically,MTV was criticized as being “WET” in the early days.
[/quote]

BECAUSE IT WAS! Micheal Jackson was the very first black performer shown on MTV and that was after the station had been on for a long time. They originally completely ignored the rapidly growing rap movement of the time which looking back today is ridiculous given Hip Hop’s domination of music world wide.

I wouldn’t waste two seconds watching BET now unless some video I was just dying to see happened to be on.

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

208

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.[/quote]

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.

209

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.[/quote]

I’ll jump in as long as it’s interesting, but their latest posts show me it’s a waste of time. I don’t get how some of these guys were raised to be completely unaware of what blacks have dealt with as recently as the late 80’s in this country.

Why isn’t it common knowledge that MTV only played music by white artists when they first aired?

Why do they think this is insignificant?

Those are the questions I would like answered. Anyone who thinks BET was never needed is likely also the type to exclaim they have “a black friend” while completely missing the point over and over.

210

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.

I’ll jump in as long as it’s interesting, but their latest posts show me it’s a waste of time. I don’t get how some of these guys were raised to be completely unaware of what blacks have dealt with as recently as the late 80’s in this country.

Why isn’t it common knowledge that MTV only played music by white artists when they first aired?

Why do they think this is insignificant?

Those are the questions I would like answered. Anyone who thinks BET was never needed is likely also the type to exclaim they have “a black friend” while completely missing the point over and over.[/quote]

MTV, like every other privatized company, was focused on generating revenue. The only color they cared about – then and now – was the color of money. They were a rock-centric station that catered to a white audience. Since their revenue was generated by selling advertising, it follows that their content would be packaged to attract their target demographic. Thus, the black artists that received rotation early on certainly appealed to this same audience – Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, Prince, etc. MTV execs weren’t racist. If they could’ve played Sam Cooke and Booker T and generated more revenue, they would have.

211

[quote]SinisterMinister wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.

I’ll jump in as long as it’s interesting, but their latest posts show me it’s a waste of time. I don’t get how some of these guys were raised to be completely unaware of what blacks have dealt with as recently as the late 80’s in this country.

Why isn’t it common knowledge that MTV only played music by white artists when they first aired?

Why do they think this is insignificant?

Those are the questions I would like answered. Anyone who thinks BET was never needed is likely also the type to exclaim they have “a black friend” while completely missing the point over and over.

MTV, like every other privatized company, was focused on generating revenue. The only color they cared about – then and now – was the color of money. They were a rock-centric station that catered to a white audience. Since their revenue was generated by selling advertising, it follows that their content would be packaged to attract their target demographic. Thus, the black artists that received rotation early on certainly appealed to this same audience – Michael Jackson, Tina Turner, Prince, etc. MTV execs weren’t racist. If they could’ve played Sam Cooke and Booker T and generated more revenue, they would have. [/quote]

Thus the need for BET since an entire demographic was being ignored in this country for several years (despite the growing influence of “black” music).

For the record, that is systemic racism. While you may be able to claim they were not racist, the entire system in this country was geared towards ignoring an entire group of the population that had been here in this country as long as anyone else.

212

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.

I’ll jump in as long as it’s interesting, but their latest posts show me it’s a waste of time. I don’t get how some of these guys were raised to be completely unaware of what blacks have dealt with as recently as the late 80’s in this country.

Why isn’t it common knowledge that MTV only played music by white artists when they first aired?

Why do they think this is insignificant?

Those are the questions I would like answered. Anyone who thinks BET was never needed is likely also the type to exclaim they have “a black friend” while completely missing the point over and over.[/quote]

I’m gonna just post the exact thoughts that just came across my mind:

Racism is always discussed in its entirety on mass level…in generalist views. Which is not entirely wrong,but racism is such a individualistic thing. I can assume we both have experienced racism/discrimination…but yet we both experienced those things in a different light.

The differences in how we both view our experiences with racism is further molded by the difference in our backgrounds: socio-economic class…school demographics…family environment…and even just the fact that we grew up in different areas…but the same state. No two humans absorb what is presented to them exactly the same.

With that said,imagine us looking out a window at the same tree at our own homes on the same street…I call you and tell you I see a tall pine tree through my window in my own house. You tell me I’m wrong because you see a small pine tree through your window. Whose wrong? Is it a tall tree…short tree…or is just the fact that we are looking at the same thing…at different perspectives??

It sounds retarded,I know…but that’s what comes to mind when people start talking about racism on these boards. I don’t even bother anymore really.

213

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.

I’ll jump in as long as it’s interesting, but their latest posts show me it’s a waste of time. I don’t get how some of these guys were raised to be completely unaware of what blacks have dealt with as recently as the late 80’s in this country.

Why isn’t it common knowledge that MTV only played music by white artists when they first aired?

Why do they think this is insignificant?

Those are the questions I would like answered. Anyone who thinks BET was never needed is likely also the type to exclaim they have “a black friend” while completely missing the point over and over.

I’m gonna just post the exact thoughts that just came across my mind:

Racism is always discussed in its entirety on mass level…in generalist views. Which is not entirely wrong,but racism is such a individualistic thing. I can assume we both have experienced racism/discrimination…but yet we both experienced those things in a different light.

The differences in how we both view our experiences with racism is further molded by the difference in our backgrounds: socio-economic class…school demographics…family environment…and even just the fact that we grew up in different areas…but the same state. No two humans absorb what is presented to them exactly the same.

With that said,imagine us looking out a window at the same tree at our own homes on the same street…I call you and tell you I see a tall pine tree through my window in my own house. You tell me I’m wrong because you see a small pine tree through your window. Whose wrong? Is it a tall tree…short tree…or is just the fact that we are looking at the same thing…at different perspectives??

It sounds retarded,I know…but that’s what comes to mind when people start talking about racism on these boards. I don’t even bother anymore really.

[/quote]

You have a point, but unlike FOX news, sometimes what you see directly in front of you is actually exactly as you see it.

When people start with the, “why do you need BET” bullshit, I can only imagine their parents raised them in a bubble and pushed any info about blacks in this country in reference to discrimination under the rug whenever it arose.

It SHOULD be common knowledge why BET was needed. Why should an entire race of people be devoid of music from people who look like them especially when that music was selling to white people even more than to their own race?

None the less, here we are in 2008 with people trying to revise history as if BET just popped up for no reason just to spite white people.

214

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Professor X wrote:

You know, if you actually have to explain why BET was needed in the first place, clearly anything you type is falling on deaf ears. These people didn’t live in the country I did growing up apparently. Their world was some place else.

I try to keep on open mind and unbiased as possible when “discussions” like this come up…but I think I’m starting to disappoint myself.

I’ll jump in as long as it’s interesting, but their latest posts show me it’s a waste of time. I don’t get how some of these guys were raised to be completely unaware of what blacks have dealt with as recently as the late 80’s in this country.

Why isn’t it common knowledge that MTV only played music by white artists when they first aired?

Why do they think this is insignificant?

Those are the questions I would like answered. Anyone who thinks BET was never needed is likely also the type to exclaim they have “a black friend” while completely missing the point over and over.

I’m gonna just post the exact thoughts that just came across my mind:

Racism is always discussed in its entirety on mass level…in generalist views. Which is not entirely wrong,but racism is such a individualistic thing. I can assume we both have experienced racism/discrimination…but yet we both experienced those things in a different light.

The differences in how we both view our experiences with racism is further molded by the difference in our backgrounds: socio-economic class…school demographics…family environment…and even just the fact that we grew up in different areas…but the same state. No two humans absorb what is presented to them exactly the same.

With that said,imagine us looking out a window at the same tree at our own homes on the same street…I call you and tell you I see a tall pine tree through my window in my own house. You tell me I’m wrong because you see a small pine tree through your window. Whose wrong? Is it a tall tree…short tree…or is just the fact that we are looking at the same thing…at different perspectives??

It sounds retarded,I know…but that’s what comes to mind when people start talking about racism on these boards. I don’t even bother anymore really.

You have a point, but unlike FOX news, sometimes what you see directly in front of you is actually exactly as you see it.

When people start with the, “why do you need BET” bullshit, I can only imagine their parents raised them in a bubble and pushed any info about blacks in this country in reference to discrimination under the rug whenever it arose.

It SHOULD be common knowledge why BET was needed. Why should an entire race of people be devoid of music from people who look like them especially when that music was selling to white people even more than to their own race?

None the less, here we are in 2008 with people trying to revise history as if BET just popped up for no reason just to spite white people.
[/quote]

Whoa! hold the damn phone. Who ever said anything about BET not being justified?

I pointed out that the fact that it is allowed to exist without a huge fuss and dozens of discrimination law suits is proof that allowances are made in direct contradiction to what you posted earlier.

I specifically said justified or not in my previous post. Read what I wrote. I never argued justification. There are allowances made that would not be for white people, period. Are you saying they aren’t enough?

215

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Whoa! hold the damn phone. Who ever said anything about BET not being justified?

I pointed out that the fact that it is allowed to exist without a huge fuss and dozens of discrimination law suits is proof that allowances are made in direct contradiction to what you posted earlier.

I specifically said justified or not in my previous post. Read what I wrote. I never argued justification. There are allowances made that would not be for white people, period. Are you saying they aren’t enough?[/quote]

They clearly are NOT enough if someone can bring up the existence of BET as a symbol of “allowances”. BET exists, name and all, because of the underrepresentation of black people. There are Mexican networks as well but clearly this never sets off people trying to point fingers.

It wouldn’t work for white people because at the time of BET’s inception, the entire landscape on TV was white. Hell, in the early 80’s it was still rare to see a black family on a random commercial or billboard sign.

Why would there be discrimination law suits when it was created because of discrimination?

That is what we have been discussing for pages.

If black people join together to fight racism, this can NOT be considered racist because they would be the ones oppressed historically. As time progresses, hopefully all lines will be erased but quit pretending as if these things were simply “allowances”.

216

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Whoa! hold the damn phone. Who ever said anything about BET not being justified?

I pointed out that the fact that it is allowed to exist without a huge fuss and dozens of discrimination law suits is proof that allowances are made in direct contradiction to what you posted earlier.

I specifically said justified or not in my previous post. Read what I wrote. I never argued justification. There are allowances made that would not be for white people, period. Are you saying they aren’t enough?

They clearly are NOT enough if someone can bring up the existence of BET as a symbol of “allowances”. BET exists, name and all, because of the underrepresentation of black people. There are Mexican networks as well but clearly this never sets off people trying to point fingers.

It wouldn’t work for white people because at the time of BET’s inception, the entire landscape on TV was white. Hell, in the early 80’s it was still rare to see a black family on a random commercial or billboard sign.

Why would there be discrimination law suits when it was created because of discrimination?

That is what we have been discussing for pages.

If black people join together to fight racism, this can NOT be considered racist because they would be the ones oppressed historically. As time progresses, hopefully all lings will be erased but quit pretending as if these things were simply “allowances”.[/quote]

So I’ve never experienced racism?

This racism is only institutional BS is retarded.

If you treat people differently based on race it is racism.

You I guess are saying racism is sometimes justified. This is where I disagree.

I also named a number of allowances besides BET.

So, if a couple, one black and one white, are dating. And they catch flack from both sides, the white people are racist, and the black people are just standing up for their race? Not to mention the white person in the relationship isn’t experiencing racism.

You argue against statistics that lump blacks in as a group. Then try to use the same stats to justify your logic.

You talk about having to fight for rights and equality as a group, then say hey, don’t call us a group.

217

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Whoa! hold the damn phone. Who ever said anything about BET not being justified?

I pointed out that the fact that it is allowed to exist without a huge fuss and dozens of discrimination law suits is proof that allowances are made in direct contradiction to what you posted earlier.

I specifically said justified or not in my previous post. Read what I wrote. I never argued justification. There are allowances made that would not be for white people, period. Are you saying they aren’t enough?

They clearly are NOT enough if someone can bring up the existence of BET as a symbol of “allowances”. BET exists, name and all, because of the underrepresentation of black people. There are Mexican networks as well but clearly this never sets off people trying to point fingers.

It wouldn’t work for white people because at the time of BET’s inception, the entire landscape on TV was white. Hell, in the early 80’s it was still rare to see a black family on a random commercial or billboard sign.

Why would there be discrimination law suits when it was created because of discrimination?

That is what we have been discussing for pages.

If black people join together to fight racism, this can NOT be considered racist because they would be the ones oppressed historically. As time progresses, hopefully all lings will be erased but quit pretending as if these things were simply “allowances”.

So I’ve never experienced racism?

This racism is only institutional BS is retarded.

If you treat people differently based on race it is racism.

You I guess are saying racism is sometimes justified. This is where I disagree.

I also named a number of allowances besides BET.

So, if a couple, one black and one white, are dating. And they catch flack from both sides, the white people are racist, and the black people are just standing up for their race? Not to mention the white person in the relationship isn’t experiencing racism.

You argue against statistics that lump blacks in as a group. Then try to use the same stats to justify your logic.

You talk about having to fight for rights and equality as a group, then say hey, don’t call us a group.

[/quote]

Dude, quit the bullshit. RACISM involves one group being OVER another in some fashion, whether that be financially or socially. Racism is NOT one racial group coming together to fight racism against it. That doesn’t even fucking make sense.

Why the fuck does this need to be explained to you?

BET can NOT be racist because it was created due to blacks not being represented.

This should NOT need to be explained to you. Deal with it and get over it.

If you are not being oppressed in some situation or in a position made inferior than those on the same level as you, you are not the victim of “racism”.

Sorry if that hurts.

218

I completely agree, most of his arguments would infer that racism only occurs towards blacks from whites, and yes it has, but all groups are racist prejudiced and biased. It is the way of life, we just need to not let these influence rights given to other people.

219

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Dude, quit the bullshit. RACISM involves one group being OVER another in some fashion, whether that be financially or socially. Racism is NOT one racial group coming together to fight racism against it. That doesn’t even fucking make sense.

Why the fuck does this need to be explained to you?

BET can NOT be racist because it was created due to blacks not being represented.

This should NOT need to be explained to you. Deal with it and get over it.

If you are not being oppressed in some situation or in a position made inferior than those on the same level as you, you are not the victim of “racism”.

Sorry if that hurts.

[/quote]

No racism is a prejudiced in judgement based on ethnicity, may lead to oppression on a wide scale and occurs,

how about you get out of your own way and realize everyone has bias including you.

220

[quote]Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Professor X wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:

Whoa! hold the damn phone. Who ever said anything about BET not being justified?

I pointed out that the fact that it is allowed to exist without a huge fuss and dozens of discrimination law suits is proof that allowances are made in direct contradiction to what you posted earlier.

I specifically said justified or not in my previous post. Read what I wrote. I never argued justification. There are allowances made that would not be for white people, period. Are you saying they aren’t enough?

They clearly are NOT enough if someone can bring up the existence of BET as a symbol of “allowances”. BET exists, name and all, because of the underrepresentation of black people. There are Mexican networks as well but clearly this never sets off people trying to point fingers.

It wouldn’t work for white people because at the time of BET’s inception, the entire landscape on TV was white. Hell, in the early 80’s it was still rare to see a black family on a random commercial or billboard sign.

Why would there be discrimination law suits when it was created because of discrimination?

That is what we have been discussing for pages.

If black people join together to fight racism, this can NOT be considered racist because they would be the ones oppressed historically. As time progresses, hopefully all lings will be erased but quit pretending as if these things were simply “allowances”.

So I’ve never experienced racism?

This racism is only institutional BS is retarded.

If you treat people differently based on race it is racism.

You I guess are saying racism is sometimes justified. This is where I disagree.

I also named a number of allowances besides BET.

So, if a couple, one black and one white, are dating. And they catch flack from both sides, the white people are racist, and the black people are just standing up for their race? Not to mention the white person in the relationship isn’t experiencing racism.

You argue against statistics that lump blacks in as a group. Then try to use the same stats to justify your logic.

You talk about having to fight for rights and equality as a group, then say hey, don’t call us a group.

Dude, quit the bullshit. RACISM involves one group being OVER another in some fashion, whether that be financially or socially. Racism is NOT one racial group coming together to fight racism against it. That doesn’t even fucking make sense.

Why the fuck does this need to be explained to you?

BET can NOT be racist because it was created due to blacks not being represented.

This should NOT need to be explained to you. Deal with it and get over it.

If you are not being oppressed in some situation or in a position made inferior than those on the same level as you, you are not the victim of “racism”.

Sorry if that hurts.

[/quote]

Wow, you actually agree with the stuff I was being pretty sarcastic about.

You are against these kinds of race statistics, correct? Justify your argument without them then.

Black lack of representation is one such statistic. Or is it you only agree with their use when convenient?

The fact that there were minorities at my college that wouldn’t have gotten in if they were white isn’t a form of oppression? What about the fact I can legally get turned down for a job because of my race. How about that I’m taught to be ashamed of my race for all the bad thing it/(I) did? Or that the city where I lived publicly turned down a Lows because the offer was from a white man.