White Kids Shot

Off Topic
102

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
…typed out a response, then realized it was best just to sit back and watch.

Once again I’m not sure why an Aussie guy is focusing on events in other countries though. Heck, now I understand why Chushin got so annoyed by that libertarian dude. lol [/quote]
Ha ha!

Thanks, GL. I knew you’d come around. ;-)[/quote]

lol. Yep, now I see the annoyance. I pretty much just ignore the libertarian dude now. Kinda sad that I’m starting to see the other guy in the same light. But life is to short to argue forever.

103

[quote]Chushin wrote:

Hey Four. Just FYI, it was / is a Buddhist symbol. It’s still all over temples over here (though I think maybe the “arms” roll in the opposite direction).

Just some info for ya.

EDIT: Called a “Manji” in Japanese.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manji[/quote]

lol, my first car navigation system had those symbols prominently all over the maps. As I couldn’t read Japanese yet I had to drive to one to learn wtf was going on. lol

104

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinGuineaMick ;*)

The KKK is far older than the LBJ presidency.
[/quote]

Yes I know. It was formed after the Civil War by Confederate veterans.

[quote]
And when it was formed, the Democratic party was on the opposite side of the political spectrum.[/quote]

No, you would wrong there. The first Democratic president was Jefferson - a very smart man; an integral founding father - but a slave owner none the less. Lincoln’s Republican party was the descendant of the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The Democrats were the party of slavery(largely) and the party of segregation(largely.) The shift occurred in the mid sixties - Democrats(largely) opposed the civil rights movement - Republicans (largely) supported it. LBJ’s socialist platforms, building on those of FDR together with the radicalism that was rife at the time transformed the Democratic Party. Blacks(largely) shifted their allegiance to the Democratic party in the mid-60’s.

Of course Barry Goldwater, although he had supported most civil rights legislation prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voted against it. I don’t defend Goldwater’s decision nor attack his motives. As always things are more complicated. I believe in negative rights and that all should be equal under the law. The Declaration of Independence espoused equality before the law and it was eventually brought to fruition. But I believe somewhere around the mid sixties the process was hi-jacked by radicals.

And just to show I’m not a partisan hack, there were and are plenty of racists in the Republican party. And as always things are more complicated than that. Many people with legitimate concerns about increasing federal power and states’ rights are are connected with that faction.

And LBJ’s “great society” hasn’t worked out so well for the black underpriviliged, nor the white underprivileged, nor anyone else.[/quote]

There is a huge distinction between “Democrat” and “Southern Democrat” in the context you speak of. Most opposition to LBJ’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as far as politicians go, were Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The opposition was NOT a political one so much as it was a geographical one. For instance, Congressman Emmanuel Celler (D-NY) added several provisions to the original Act drafted under JFK, who renewed focus on civil rights legislation as part of his campaign strategy in 1960, not the mid-60’s. There was bipartisan support for the bill in the Senate as well, as the Senate Minority and Majority leaders both voted for it, neither of whom was from the South.

I’d be willing to bet that if you looked at a breakdown of the voting on the final bill, you’d find that the split occurs along geographical lines and not partisan ones. In fact…I just looked up the voting record. Not A SINGLE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN in the House voted for the bill and a grand total of two southern Senators voted for it, one from each party. Seven of 87 Southern Democrat Congressmen voted for it.

So don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. The “shift” you speak of never occurred at all. Civil rights legislation has almost exclusively been opposed by politicians from the South and NOT along partisan lines.

105

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Once again I’m not sure why an Aussie guy is focusing on events in other countries though. Heck, now I understand why Chushin got so annoyed by that libertarian dude. lol [/quote]

Why? Why not, do u actually think that these issues only happen in the US and do not influence and shape attitudes here in Australia.

Now I understand why the rest of the world gets so annoyed by that view.[/quote]

I used to see things that way man. But there just comes a point where you realize that without extensive local knowledge, you’re just looking at things in an anthropological sense. Perhaps it comes from living in other countries, idk, but I have “come around” to this idea lately.

Racism in the US is VERY different than racism in Japan and (I assume) from racism in Aussie-land or Europe.

Eh, my 2 cents.

106

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
Same reason that Cain Velasquez can parade around on national TV with a 20" long “BROWN PRIDE” tattoo on his chest and no one says a damn word, but if any top white athlete ever showed up to game day with a giant “white pride” tattoo he’d instantly be labeled a racist and his career would be over. We’re always gonna be wrong.
[/quote]

Just popped into this thread, not much point in continuing after this^

Kind of a “nuff said” moment.

107

[quote]andrew_live wrote:

[quote]audiogarden1 wrote:
Same reason that Cain Velasquez can parade around on national TV with a 20" long “BROWN PRIDE” tattoo on his chest and no one says a damn word, but if any top white athlete ever showed up to game day with a giant “white pride” tattoo he’d instantly be labeled a racist and his career would be over. We’re always gonna be wrong.
[/quote]

Just popped into this thread, not much point in continuing after this^

Kind of a “nuff said” moment.[/quote]

And you will forever believe this Because you can’t change a closed mind.

108

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]aussie486 wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

Once again I’m not sure why an Aussie guy is focusing on events in other countries though. Heck, now I understand why Chushin got so annoyed by that libertarian dude. lol [/quote]

Why? Why not, do u actually think that these issues only happen in the US and do not influence and shape attitudes here in Australia.

Now I understand why the rest of the world gets so annoyed by that view.[/quote]

I used to see things that way man. But there just comes a point where you realize that without extensive local knowledge, your just looking at things in an anthropological sense. Perhaps it comes from living in other countries, idk, but I have “come around” to this idea lately.

Racism in the US is VERY different than racism in Japan and (I assume) from racism in Aussie-land or Europe.

Eh, my 2 cents.[/quote]

Reading through PWI makes you realise the US is such a totally different country and culture to even the UK, which is considered the most ‘American-like’ country of Europe that often analogies can be very inexact. And vice-versa

109

I find myself agreeing with four60 more and more. His comment earlier about “If the KK had not adopted the ‘white pride’ phrases then it wouldn’t be hateful verbiage”. This is very true. Minorities may be able to get away with black/brown/yellow/red pride tattoos and clothing, but how often do you see an ordinary black person wearing a shirt with a black panther or raised fist? Not often. They are symbols of hate.

No one has a problem with phrases like gay pride, American pride, women’s pride, etc. None are symbols of hate, even if you disagree with the political motives behind each.

110

Derp?

Four60: Guess I wasnt clear. What I’m saying is that there really is still a strong resentment against the racism that “white” people have been party to in past generations. Even other white people get riled up trying to avoid racism. And theres really nothing we can do about it except ride it out. Who knows, maybe in another 100 years thing might be different? Maybe not.

Black people are really the only people that gather under the banner of their own skin colour. Other nathionalities really just gather under their country’s flag right?

111

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
Derp?

Four60: Guess I wasnt clear. What I’m saying is that there really is still a strong resentment against the racism that “white” people have been party to in past generations. Even other white people get riled up trying to avoid racism. And theres really nothing we can do about it except ride it out. Who knows, maybe in another 100 years thing might be different? Maybe not.

Black people are really the only people that gather under the banner of their own skin colour. Other nathionalities really just gather under their country’s flag right?[/quote]

I suppose I agree with your first paragraph. White people DO have to be more careful about what they say and do to avoid being accused of being a racist. But there are Italians, Frenchmen, and Poles in my city who don’t consider themselves white. So it’s more than a flag to them, they really think they are a different race/ethnicity. Whatever.

112

[quote]andrew_live wrote:
Derp?

Four60: Guess I wasnt clear. What I’m saying is that there really is still a strong resentment against the racism that “white” people have been party to in past generations. Even other white people get riled up trying to avoid racism. And theres really nothing we can do about it except ride it out. Who knows, maybe in another 100 years thing might be different? Maybe not.

Black people are really the only people that gather under the banner of their own skin colour. Other nathionalities really just gather under their country’s flag right?[/quote]

We can do more than just ride it out. We can both start by not allowing the media and hate groups blind us with Blanket judgements.

White Pride as a word or a phrase means nothing to me except for the stigma it carries with it from Hate groups. Does a Imbalance exist in the Media YES. I really have no issue with the title of his thread. If anyone harms or kills for nothing more than a hate of skin pigment or faith it’s an insanity that should be investigated on both sides.

Does the media play up the murder of a Black person by a white person more than the reverse, Maybe I have noticed it in many ways.
Does the Media play up a missing white child over a child of any other race, Maybe I have noticed that also.

It’s done for the same reasons. Ratings and Money.

113

[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
I’m sorry but white people make up like what, 75% of the population in the United States? Like I’ve said countless times, violence against Caucasians will never be seen as the same as violence against minorities as long as white people are the majority. It’s a game of numbers and history of minority oppression. Not to mention that white colonization still has a lingering subconscious trace in the cranium of society.

Is it right? Fuck no but it explains why there is ‘hypocrisy.’

Think of it psychologically. When a white man attacks a black man out of prejudice he is acting on an oppression impulse. When a black man attacks a white man out of prejudice he does it for ‘liberty.’ Hate is hate and nether can be tolerated in a civilized society but the hypocrisy angle assumes we live in a perfect world. We don’t.

/Thread[/quote]

Go to South Africa then see how much shit you are speaking.

Its cool to be racist towards whites no matter where you are or how many of them there are. We get the last laugh because the majority of ‘white’ countries aren’t utter shitholes.

Guess they cant govern themselves eh?

114

[quote]four60 wrote:
Does the Media play up a missing white child over a child of any other race, Maybe I have noticed that also.

It’s done for the same reasons. Ratings and Money.
[/quote]

havent noticed this till now. Looking back I can see this has happened all the time. I guess I would have liked to think Canada was a less racist but it happens here the same as it does in the States. Its just weird seeing racism as something as simple as just bias or ‘skin favoring’? rather than hate.

115

[quote]andrew_live wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
Does the Media play up a missing white child over a child of any other race, Maybe I have noticed that also.

It’s done for the same reasons. Ratings and Money.
[/quote]

havent noticed this till now. Looking back I can see this has happened all the time. I guess I would have liked to think Canada was a less racist but it happens here the same as it does in the States. Its just weird seeing racism as something as simple as just bias or ‘skin favoring’? rather than hate.[/quote]

Everyone has hangups don’t mean we gotta feed into them.

Hahahah hahahahaha man the media don’t care about Race, just Ratings. They know if they play up “hate Crime” it will get more play time and debate. The thing about the missing children is the same it’s about Ratings. if your country has a majority of one race over the other than a child of the Majority will get more play time. Not because the programers care more, but the majority group will identify more with a child that looks like one of them and will spend mor time thinking it could be my child.

And we the public fall for it.

We are all crazy, and I’m sticking with that.

116

[quote]andrew_live wrote:

[quote]four60 wrote:
Does the Media play up a missing white child over a child of any other race, Maybe I have noticed that also.

It’s done for the same reasons. Ratings and Money.
[/quote]

havent noticed this till now. Looking back I can see this has happened all the time. I guess I would have liked to think Canada was a less racist but it happens here the same as it does in the States. Its just weird seeing racism as something as simple as just bias or ‘skin favoring’? rather than hate.[/quote]

LOL at not noticing that until now.

119

I have to take a line from Daniel Tosh:

At least we are not women. Am I right guys?? Huh?

120

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
…typed out a response, then realized it was best just to sit back and watch.

Once again I’m not sure why an Aussie guy is focusing on events in other countries though. Heck, now I understand why Chushin got so annoyed by that libertarian dude. lol

[/quote]

That is the same guy we are still waiting on to post pictures of his “52” chest". He has conveniently forgotten about this over and over.

I call troll…which is why I responded the way I did.[/quote]

I missed the 52" chest thread. Probably quality. Anyone have a link?

It’s too bad the guy just likes trolling. I had a conversation or two that were decent in PWI… I guess maybe he was just warming up for this type of shit. The “gang rape” thread in PWI was something else. Or maybe he does actually believe it. …eh
[/quote]

Err…I think he was talking about ‘audiogarden1’ not me.

121

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]FightinGuineaMick ;*)

The KKK is far older than the LBJ presidency.
[/quote]

Yes I know. It was formed after the Civil War by Confederate veterans.

[quote]
And when it was formed, the Democratic party was on the opposite side of the political spectrum.[/quote]

No, you would wrong there. The first Democratic president was Jefferson - a very smart man; an integral founding father - but a slave owner none the less. Lincoln’s Republican party was the descendant of the Federalist Party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The Democrats were the party of slavery(largely) and the party of segregation(largely.) The shift occurred in the mid sixties - Democrats(largely) opposed the civil rights movement - Republicans (largely) supported it. LBJ’s socialist platforms, building on those of FDR together with the radicalism that was rife at the time transformed the Democratic Party. Blacks(largely) shifted their allegiance to the Democratic party in the mid-60’s.

Of course Barry Goldwater, although he had supported most civil rights legislation prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 voted against it. I don’t defend Goldwater’s decision nor attack his motives. As always things are more complicated. I believe in negative rights and that all should be equal under the law. The Declaration of Independence espoused equality before the law and it was eventually brought to fruition. But I believe somewhere around the mid sixties the process was hi-jacked by radicals.

And just to show I’m not a partisan hack, there were and are plenty of racists in the Republican party. And as always things are more complicated than that. Many people with legitimate concerns about increasing federal power and states’ rights are are connected with that faction.

And LBJ’s “great society” hasn’t worked out so well for the black underpriviliged, nor the white underprivileged, nor anyone else.[/quote]

There is a huge distinction between “Democrat” and “Southern Democrat” in the context you speak of. Most opposition to LBJ’s Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as far as politicians go, were Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans. The opposition was NOT a political one so much as it was a geographical one. For instance, Congressman Emmanuel Celler (D-NY) added several provisions to the original Act drafted under JFK, who renewed focus on civil rights legislation as part of his campaign strategy in 1960, not the mid-60’s. There was bipartisan support for the bill in the Senate as well, as the Senate Minority and Majority leaders both voted for it, neither of whom was from the South.

I’d be willing to bet that if you looked at a breakdown of the voting on the final bill, you’d find that the split occurs along geographical lines and not partisan ones. In fact…I just looked up the voting record. Not A SINGLE SOUTHERN REPUBLICAN in the House voted for the bill and a grand total of two southern Senators voted for it, one from each party. Seven of 87 Southern Democrat Congressmen voted for it.

So don’t sell me the hooker with the heart of gold, pal. The “shift” you speak of never occurred at all. Civil rights legislation has almost exclusively been opposed by politicians from the South and NOT along partisan lines.[/quote]

I’m not selling anything. And I’ve seen the numbers too:

http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/the_obama_tapes?id=5127839&pageNo=2

See the post by DrSkeptix.