[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Very good post and Keyes would brutally maul Obama in a debate. He is an extremely capable and clear thinking politician which probably explains why he gets so little attention. I’m still recovering from neck injuries sustained while nodding in response to some of his speeches.[/quote]
Go watch the videos. Keyes ran against Obama for the Illinois state senate and he DID brutally maul him. The debates are on his website.
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
…and Keyes would brutally maul Obama in a debate.
Obama beat Keyes for Illinois senate.
[/quote]
You need to understand the details of this race. Keyes was drafted by the party to run against Obama with less than three months left until the elections, after Jack Ryan dropped out amidst a sex scandal. Obama had a huge lead already by the time Keyes entered the race.
To make matters worse, since Illinois is largely a pro-choice state, the party then asked Keyes to support abortion rights, when he refused he was left with minimal support and money from the states republican party.
Even so, winning the election is not dependant on winning the debates. Illinois is a liberal state anyways.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it is racist. Your arbitrary confounding of racism notwithstanding, when you assign any kind of value or privilege on the basis of ethnicity alone, it is racism - “superiority” has nothing to do with it.
Professor X wrote:
Again…as if it hasn’t been written before, this would mean the Civil Rights movement is also RACIST according to this definition and every single effort by it as well. If you believe this there is something wrong.
[/quote]
Was it not the goal of the Civil Rights movement to make all races equal under the law and in society? That is, to remove all values, privileges, and restrictions based on race?
If the color of a candidate’s skin affects the likelihood of a voter casting a vote for or against this candidate, then has the voter not placed a value on skin color? That is, is the voter not doing the exact thing – placing a value on skin color – that the Civil Rights movement was trying to stop?
[quote]tedro wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
…and Keyes would brutally maul Obama in a debate.
Obama beat Keyes for Illinois senate.
You need to understand the details of this race. Keyes was drafted by the party to run against Obama with less than three months left until the elections, after Jack Ryan dropped out amidst a sex scandal. Obama had a huge lead already by the time Keyes entered the race.
To make matters worse, since Illinois is largely a pro-choice state, the party then asked Keyes to support abortion rights, when he refused he was left with minimal support and money from the states republican party.
Even so, winning the election is not dependant on winning the debates. Illinois is a liberal state anyways.[/quote]
I respect people’s political views…even if I disagree with them…But come on now…Keyes is smart,but damn its like something clicks in his head at the wrong moments and makes him says some crazy shit sometimes. And you know people don’t like crazy.
[quote]tGunslinger wrote:
Was it not the goal of the Civil Rights movement to make all races equal under the law and in society? That is, to remove all values, privileges, and restrictions based on race?[/quote]
Dear lord, if that had happened already we wouldn’t be having this discussion and people would think nothing of a black president.
Are you saying you think all “values, privileges, and restrictions based on race” have been erased? You think you will have the exact same obstacles in life as a black man?
Really?
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.[/quote]
That’s funny. You have a guy on here basically saying that republican blacks can’t be elected be cause they are not black enough, and veiled references to them being Uncle Toms.
Yeah - let me know when negative stereotypes have gone.
One more reason for digging up LBJ’s body and shooting the SOB.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it is racist. Your arbitrary confounding of racism notwithstanding, when you assign any kind of value or privilege on the basis of ethnicity alone, it is racism - “superiority” has nothing to do with it.
Again…as if it hasn’t been written before, this would mean the Civil Rights movement is also RACIST according to this definition and every single effort by it as well. If you believe this there is something wrong.[/quote]
Completely false. The Civil Rights movement, as noted before, was not interested in privileging a race - the movement wanted the opposite result. It wanted to de-privilege race and create equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Originally, that is.
What you want is equality of result - not the same thing as equality of opportunity.
[quote]tedro wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
…and Keyes would brutally maul Obama in a debate.
Obama beat Keyes for Illinois senate.
You need to understand the details of this race. Keyes was drafted by the party to run against Obama with less than three months left until the elections, after Jack Ryan dropped out amidst a sex scandal. Obama had a huge lead already by the time Keyes entered the race.
To make matters worse, since Illinois is largely a pro-choice state, the party then asked Keyes to support abortion rights, when he refused he was left with minimal support and money from the states republican party.
Even so, winning the election is not dependant on winning the debates. Illinois is a liberal state anyways.[/quote]
Keyes never had a chance.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I’m sorry, what is your point? Didn’t one of the others posters find a college (historically black college) that is looking for white students?[/quote]
Who cares what “other posters” posted?
Would it be right for an NFL to start a white running back for the sole reason that whites are under-represented at the position?
[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
…and Keyes would brutally maul Obama in a debate.
Obama beat Keyes for Illinois senate.
[/quote]
I didn’t say anything about elections. Keyes is entirely unelectable, especially in the black community. He stands for all the principles that made this country great and recognizes that those principles are valid for all races. My support for Keyes has nothing to do with his view of the black community BTW, although that is a bonus. I don’t see the political arena in terms of race in any way. When I say somebody would win a debate, I’m talking about substance, not whether people who are immune to truth recognize it or not.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I’m sorry, what is your point? Didn’t one of the others posters find a college (historically black college) that is looking for white students?
Who cares what “other posters” posted?
Would it be right for an NFL to start a white running back for the sole reason that whites are under-represented at the position?[/quote]
If this was due to a systemic process of holding whites back in sports then yes. Since that has never been the case IN HISTORY, no.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.
That’s funny. You have a guy on here basically saying that republican blacks can’t be elected be cause they are not black enough, and veiled references to them being Uncle Toms.
Yeah - let me know when negative stereotypes have gone.
One more reason for digging up LBJ’s body and shooting the SOB. [/quote]
Wow.
It is amazing how some of you ignore that the black community may not agree with you on your assessment of what “black people need”. If the black community sees some of these men as not actually helping the community, why do you think your insight is so much better?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, it is racist. Your arbitrary confounding of racism notwithstanding, when you assign any kind of value or privilege on the basis of ethnicity alone, it is racism - “superiority” has nothing to do with it.
Again…as if it hasn’t been written before, this would mean the Civil Rights movement is also RACIST according to this definition and every single effort by it as well. If you believe this there is something wrong.
Completely false. The Civil Rights movement, as noted before, was not interested in privileging a race - the movement wanted the opposite result. It wanted to de-privilege race and create equality of opportunity, not equality of result. Originally, that is.
What you want is equality of result - not the same thing as equality of opportunity.[/quote]
To “deprivilege race” required quite a bit of social restructuring considering, like we have discussed before, white society owned, controlled and reflected itself in all of society. Without any promotion of other races at all or any attempts to increase the level of education and business of minorities, there is no way this could occur.
You seem to be under the delusion that the Civil Rights movement was not for these things as well. Are you being serious? How the fuck could the playing field be equalized without any attempt at all to aid those who had been kept beneath the standard of living in this country as a whole for so long?
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.
That’s funny. You have a guy on here basically saying that republican blacks can’t be elected be cause they are not black enough, and veiled references to them being Uncle Toms.
Yeah - let me know when negative stereotypes have gone.
One more reason for digging up LBJ’s body and shooting the SOB. [/quote]
The difference between conservative and liberal principle when it comes to race is that conservatives actually do view all men as being equally capable while liberals view some men as requiring largess from the other group before they can achieve.
This is slavery revisited. “We can’t make it without help from of all people, white people, who still make up the vast majority of the tax paying public”. It promotes resentment on both sides, leaves it’s victims wondering how they would have done on their own and creates an endless cycle of community dependence that’s destructive to the individual and by extension their families and society.
It’s tragic, but we are on a bobsled ride right into the jaws of the very system we fought the cold war to defeat and I don’t see any hope of turning back now.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
If this was due to a systemic process of holding whites back in sports then yes. Since that has never been the case IN HISTORY, no.[/quote]
Preposterous. Even if there was “systemic” racism holding whites back at the position historically, giving a white guy the job based on his race does nothing to fix the systemic racism of the past.
Can’t take you seriously after this answer. When you privilege someone because of their race to the exclusion of other meritorious reasons, it doesn’t matter your motive.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.
That’s funny. You have a guy on here basically saying that republican blacks can’t be elected be cause they are not black enough, and veiled references to them being Uncle Toms.
Yeah - let me know when negative stereotypes have gone.
One more reason for digging up LBJ’s body and shooting the SOB.
The difference between conservative and liberal principle when it comes to race is that conservatives actually do view all men as being equally capable while liberals view some men as requiring largess from the other group before they can achieve.
This is slavery revisited. “We can’t make it without help from of all people, white people, who still make up the vast majority of the tax paying public”. It promotes resentment on both sides, leaves it’s victims wondering how they would have done on their own and creates an endless cycle of community dependence that’s destructive to the individual and by extension their families and society.
It’s tragic, but we are on a bobsled ride right into the jaws of the very system we fought the cold war to defeat and I don’t see any hope of turning back now.[/quote]
I am amazed some of you still think in such strict terms as “liberal and conservative”.
How primitive.
It is cute though that you have chosen a label.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Professor X wrote:
If this was due to a systemic process of holding whites back in sports then yes. Since that has never been the case IN HISTORY, no.
Preposterous. Even if there was “systemic” racism holding whites back at the position historically, giving a white guy the job based on his race does nothing to fix the systemic racism of the past.
Can’t take you seriously after this answer. When you privilege someone because of their race to the exclusion of other meritorious reasons, it doesn’t matter your motive.
[/quote]
Gee, how many white guys do you think would be chosen who COULD NOT PLAY THE SPORT WELL? Why do you seem to think that acknowledging a race has been disadvantaged and focusing on aiding those WHO ARE CAPABLE and also seem to be of that race means the same as “[quote]privilege someone because of their race to the exclusion of other meritorious reasons[/quote]”?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.
That’s funny. You have a guy on here basically saying that republican blacks can’t be elected be cause they are not black enough, and veiled references to them being Uncle Toms.
Yeah - let me know when negative stereotypes have gone.
One more reason for digging up LBJ’s body and shooting the SOB.
Wow.
It is amazing how some of you ignore that the black community may not agree with you on your assessment of what “black people need”. If the black community sees some of these men as not actually helping the community, why do you think your insight is so much better?[/quote]
Who said anything about what the black community needs? I commented on stereotypes, which are evidently okay for the black community to hold, but oppressive/racist for a white man to hold.
You see race. I see stupidity.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Genius, let me know the moment social stigmas and negative stereotypes based on race have disappeared.
That’s funny. You have a guy on here basically saying that republican blacks can’t be elected be cause they are not black enough, and veiled references to them being Uncle Toms.
Yeah - let me know when negative stereotypes have gone.
One more reason for digging up LBJ’s body and shooting the SOB.
Wow.
It is amazing how some of you ignore that the black community may not agree with you on your assessment of what “black people need”. If the black community sees some of these men as not actually helping the community, why do you think your insight is so much better?
Who said anything about what the black community needs? I commented on stereotypes, which are evidently okay for the black community to hold, but oppressive/racist for a white man to hold.
You see race. I see stupidity.
[/quote]
No, what you focused on is some idea that the black community as a whole may think negatively of these men simply because they happen to label themselves “conservative”.
That is where the stupidity lies.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
To “deprivilege race” required quite a bit of social restructuring considering, like we have discussed before, white society owned, controlled and reflected itself in all of society. Without any promotion of other races at all or any attempts to increase the level of education and business of minorities, there is no way this could occur.[/quote]
Who said anything different? Now we live in 2008. We know there is equality of opportunity in this field because…Obama’s presumptive nomination proves it.
A vote for someone for their race is the same as a vote for someone against their race - it is measuring them by virtue of their ethnicity alone. We should discourage it whether it is for apparently good or invidious reasons because it sends a message that ethnicity is a basis for measuring someone. Bad idea to reinforce that attitude.
No, the Civil Rights movement was about trying to get minorities to have equality of opportunity. Of course society would have to change to accommodate this, and in some cases, law needed to promote it. No one is arguing otherwise.
That is because at that point there wasn’t equality of opportunity. Express segregation and de facto segregation made sure of it.
Fast forward to 2008 - a black candidate isn’t held back from running for the Presidency. Obama has equality of opportunity - as he has had all his life. He hasn’t been held back.