Ever notice how white racists complain...but don't actually say what they want DONE?

I didn't say "irrelevant" Gorn. I said those of us who were not yet born hold no guilt for the actions taken long ago. So your talking about Zyklon-B and such is just nonsense.

 

You don't think white racists (nationalists included), KKK, and Nazis are related to one another?

Drunken teenagers that say "I wanna go (*)(*)(*)(*) with some (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s", seem to fit the bill.

 

They have superficial similarities. But there is a big difference between the random drunken ass and a racially motivated, organized fighting force like the KKK, the Nazis, and yes, the Black Panthers. Instead of comparing drunk teens to Nazis, look at the big picture and see that the Panthers are a closer match.

 

Interesting how much in depth you are willing to go to differentiate between the different factions, but yet no differentiation is given for people like Sharpton, Holder, Jackson.......they are all just racist, right?

 

What, we shouldn't differentiate between drunk teens and racist institutions? Sure, the teens were racist. The KKK, Nazis, Panthers, Sharpton, Holder, Jackson, they're ALL racist. But this thread asks "what do you want to do about it". That question will be answered much differently depending on whether one is a lone nut, or a member of an organization capable of carrying out a "final solution". To equivocate the two is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

 

How has the KKK, Nazis, or the NBPP helped anyone?

Sharpton, Jackson, King were all civil rights leaders, ie, they were fighting for equal rights. Not the right for freedom to lynch people, but civil rights.

Would you agree that those teens qualify for the label of white racists?

 

When did I say that they did?

I notice you traded out Holder with MLK. Sneaky. But you were correct when you used the past tense. WERE civil rights leaders. Now...race baiters and provocateurs (excepting of course MLK).

I already said they were. I don't know why I bother to say it again if you don't read the posts.

 

No sneakiness done, I traded Holder to see what you would say about MLK. For it is an established fact that if he were alive today, he would be labeled a "race-baiter" et. al. just like Sharpton and Jackson are. People like to "use" his name as if that qualifies them as speaking as if they are knowledgeable about civil rights, but usually when the part in his autobiography is mentioned where he said

, they usually stop responding to the topic. How say you?

As for the teens, I guess that is still on-topic as to what this thread is referring to.

 

BTW, again, we look at the responses on this thread from the Right and/or Republicans...

and we see the REAL reason blacks don't want to join the Republican Party.....


because they see its membership and what they are quite clearly.

 

Any sane person can see that, but it seems like they think by saying the other side is racist then that makes it so. Almost like a ghetto version of Obi Wan Kenobi.

 

I called a girl out recently at one of my club meetings because she said that she took an honors course and complained that it was full of white guys and that didn't seem right. Being that this was a ecology club most people are of the left persuasion. Initially they defended her but when I was done none of them could stand up to the logic. If that same girl had walked into a graduate level engineering class and commented on how bad it was that most of them were Asian (70% of graduate students in the STEM fields are foreigners) she would instantly be labelled a racist. The hypocrisy of the left is astonishing and they are oblivious to it, but because its against white people that makes it OK in their eyes.

I have literally also had friends complain about having two many white friends. Seriously? Who but a racist determines the proper quota for each race to have as friends?

 

And I used "the Right" because we want to include the libertarians (real or faux).

Racist apologia being endemic of a wide spectrum of the Right from them to your standard "I vote Republican because they'll stop those 'welfare queens' and 'urban thugs'" types that voted for Walalce but Reagan woo'ed to the GOP.

They CANNOT answer "Why don't blacks vote Republican", without calling blacks "lazy" or "greedy" or "stupid"....since they certainly can't admit there are a large (but not even majority) contingent of racists in the GOP.

They are dishonest partisans for the GOP who defend party and ALL its membership...or they ARE part of that contingent of racists.

Interestingly, Rand Paul is trying to change that...but basically confessing "Yes, there is a portion of my Party that has attempted to suppress the minority vote."

 

so basically, anyone that disagrees with you is a racist.... lol

 

Established fact? Apparently you don't know what that means, because you are speaking of a hypothetical.

Ah, and it predictably devolves into partisan hackery. Goldwater was a generation ago, and no doubt King's opposition to him was over a single piece of legislation, the 1964 civil rights act, which is no longer in any contention. But I'm sure that you will use the quote in perpetuity against Republicans. Which is only really a bad thing because the Democrats are so much worse.

 

If the stream of bashing toward Sharpton and Jackson here is any indicator, then it's more than a hypothetical. Hell, even yourself called them racists, so.....

As for your last paragraph, yea, a single piece of legislation that should not have been needed, I mean, any libertarian should understand inherent civil rights....

Here is some more partisan asshattery for you, the same people fighting for civil rights, are the same people who vote democratic today.....seems like MLK was right after all, eh?

 

How many of those threads are griping about race, and how many of those threads are asking for solutions on how to deal with racism? Their's a difference.

 

I think you unintentionally just proved my point.

 

Not really. (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about how politics is one thing, (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about how to go about changing policies is another.

 

(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about how to change policies on an anonymous internet forum is an utter and complete waste of time, so the question is back in your court about what the difference is in your post.

 

I wouldn't say it's a waste of time. I've been able to revise and rethink some of my positions because of well put arguments. I've been able to look at where another person was coming from and although I disagree with them I don't judge them or think any less of that person. And I've actually learned quite a bit over my years here on PF in regards to politics and policies. But that's besides the point and easily off topic I suppose.

I already explained the difference. The reason you're not accepting it is because you don't like the answer. That's your problem, not mine.

 

Well, that's why I take the effort to respond to you, because you seem like a reasonable person. If I thought otherwise, I wouldn't waste my time.

 

Then if I seem cranky or unreasonable then please forgive me. I just woke up.

 

See, that's the thing- it isn't an indicator. Even if it were, there is a difference between a thing being "indicated" and it being an "established fact". Perhaps such nuances fly over your head. But the main difference here is that pretty much no one considers Sharpton or Jackson to be King's equal -they are just his coattail riders. I find it hard to believe, for instance, that MLK would be out rabble-rousing at Fergusen. King would have judged the matter based on Brown's obviously poor character, not his skin color. He would have also considered the fact that Brown broke Wilson's facial bones, instead of ignoring that fact for the purpose of race-baiting.

YOU'RE RIGHT! It shouldn't have been needed. Paleo-cons and libertarians tend to view our system of government as a whole to be more important than the issue of the day. Goldwater (although he supported much civil rights legislation) was looking at the big picture of state vs. federal power. Liberals don't understand how someone wouldn't want a full-on centralized government, so they attribute it all to racism.

Depends on your definition of "civil rights". Even if you were correct, it could just be them following his suggestion. So it wouldn't be a matter of him being right or wrong, but a matter of causation.

P.S. I see you've escalated from hackery to asshattery. The progression continues...

 

Obviously you missed the point.

 

If King were alive today I suspect he would, in fact, be called a race baiter by today's right wingers.

Can I prove it? Obviously not, since a racist conservative murdered him years ago.