OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

The Right’s 20 Rules of R****m. Taken from Tom Kratman’s website at http://www.tomkratman.com/Right20rules.html.

I'm only going to talk about rule 18 and rule 8.

Rule No. 18: The worst r****ts are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that b****s and Hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance.

What does it say to a black or Hispanic that he/she is too stupid to compete with w****s? That’s what affirmative action implies. That’s what lowering standards imply. It doesn’t happen with Asians. In fact they do better than w****s. Many of them come to this country with nothing and within a generation, they do better than people born here.

Look at our current president. What has he actually accomplished in his life? Editor of the Harvard Law Review? He was the first editor of this publication who never wrote a piece for it. Never!

We don’t know what kind of grades he received because he won’t release his college transcripts. What is he hiding? The LSM propaganda arm of the Democrat Party is always extolling his intelligence. He’s the “smartest man in the room”. Where’s the proof?

He “wrote” two autobiographies. Nope. They were actually written by someone else, probably his terrorist buddy William Ayers.

He didn’t write any legislation while a state senator or a US senator. He won his state senate seat by having his opponents disqualified. When running for the US Senate, his opponent’s sealed divorce records were somehow unsealed and his opponent dropped out of the race. How come it’s always a Republican’s sealed records which are made public? It never seems to happen to a Democrat. Funny how that works.

He got elected president due to overwhelming black support, white guilt, and brainwashed youth who thought it would be neat to have a black president. Dear kids, you’re gonna be the ones who will suffer the most with what Obungler has done to this country. Your Social Security will not be as good as mine. Healthcare will get more expensive and the quality will drop because of Obummercare. With the debt this country is running up, your standard of living will not be as good as my generations. But you did elect the first black president. Suckers!

Then in his ree******n campaign, with the worst recovery from a recession in my lifetime, the Stupid Party ran the only Republican who couldn’t run against Obummercare. Since b****s are held to lower standards than w****s, he was able to get reelected, though he didn’t get as many v**es as he got in the first e******n. Some people wised up. B****s didn’t, even though they were better off during the administrations of Reagan and both Bushes. Skin color trumps reality. Suckers!

His only sk**l is being able to read words off a TelePrompTer written by others. He is our first affirmative action president and as has happened so often in business affirmative action met the Peter Principle. His foreign policy is a joke. The economy is stuck in the doldrums. He has to keep delaying the implementation of Obummercare. The employer mandate has been pushed back until after the 2014 e******ns. The only reason unemployment is dropping is people are giving up looking for jobs. Obummercare has caused many full time jobs to become part time jobs. Obumbler has become the black Jimmah Carter.

Of course, they no longer call it affirmative action any more since it led to the hiring and promoting of unqualified people. I saw it a lot in the aerospace industry. Wh**ever to do? Rebranding. That usually works and that’s what they did. Affirmative action has been renamed Diversity (All Hail Diversity!) Of course, they threw some crumbs to Hispanics, women, gays, and cripples (No Asians. They don’t need it.) to make it look good, but it’s just repackaged affirmative action. Want proof? Look at the person responsible for Diversity (All Hail Diversity!) at your company. Dollars to donuts it will be a black person.

Rule: 8: It’s not r****t to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of s***ery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

Yep! If the KKK (the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party) wanted to destroy the black family, what would they have done differently than the Democrat Party? What’s more, they got the useful i***ts in the Congressional Black Caucus to buy into these destructive policies. LBJ was a genius. He said about welfare, “the ni__ers would v**e Democrat for the next 200 years”.

Amazing!

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

Great post, Old School. I'm going to tomkratman.com when I finish this sentence. Thanks for this! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Snoopy

Old School

Another great, fact-filled post!

Be ready for an attack by BoAsshole, Brian (Mr. follower) and others.

Snoopy

GOPisEVIL

Yes, AMAZING!!!

GOPisEVIL

PS: Don't think this is about Southerners being more benign; this is merely to show that pretty much ALL W****S -- even in the North -- were r****ts:


EXCLUSION of FREE B****S

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished s***ery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where s***ery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, �Democracy in America�
In some Northern states, after emancipation, b****s were legally allowed to v**e, marry w****s, file lawsuits, or sit on juries. In most, they were not. But even where the right was extended by law, often the white majority did not allow it to happen. In Massachusetts in 1795, despite the absence of any law prohibiting on black v****g, Judge James Winthrop and Thomas Pemberton wrote �that Negroes could neither elect nor be elected to office in that state.�[1] De Tocqueville, in Philadelphia in 1831, asked why, since black men had the right to v**e there, none ever dared do so. The answer came back: �The law with us is nothing if it is not supported by public opinion.� When Ohio�s prohibition against b****s testifying in legal cases involving white people was lifted in 1849, observers acknowledged that, at least in the southern part of the state, where most of the b****s lived, social prejudice would keep the ban in practical effect.
The OLD NORTH

In 1790, the first U.S. census counted 13,059 free b****s in New England, with another 13,975 in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Strictly speaking, none of them was "free," for their lives were proscribed politically, economically, and socially. While white indentured servants often became respected members of their communities after their indentures ended, free b****s in the North rarely had the opportunity to rise above the level of common laborers and washerwomen, and as early as 1760 they had formed ghettoes in the grimy alleys and waterfront districts of Boston and other Northern towns.

In colonial times, Northern freemen, like s***es, were required to carry passes when traveling in some places, and they were forbidden to own property in others. Although taxed in New England, they could not v**e there in early colonial times, though they could in the plantation colonies.[2] Free b****s were required to work on roads a certain number of days a year in Massachusetts, at the discretion of the local selectmen. They could only use ferries under certain conditions in New England. In South Kingstown, Rhode Island, they could not own horses or sheep. In Boston, they could not carry a cane unless they were unable to walk without one.

Pennsylvania colony's �Act for the better Regulation of Negroes� set penalties for free b****s who harbored runaway s***es or received property stolen from masters that were potentially much higher than those applied to w****s. If the considerable fines could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude. Under other provisions of the act, free negroes who married w****s were to be sold into s***ery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving b****s and w****s, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. W****s in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. By a law of 1718, a black man convicted of the rape of a white woman was to be castrated. Throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free b****s, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" b****s of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities.

Having set controls on their black residents, the Northern states busied themselves in passing laws to make sure no more b****s moved within their boundaries. These were not elitist actions. The pressure for total exclusion came from the working class w****s, struggling for a little bargaining power with the shopowners and fearful of inexpensive black competition that could drive down wages. New Jersey in 1786 had prohibited b****s from entering the state to settle, because "sound public policy requires that importation be prohibited in order that white labour may be protected." Connecticut's legislature, making the same prohibition in 1784, had declared that it did so because "the increase of s***es is injurious to the poor."

As far back as 1717, citizens of New London, Connecticut, in a town meeting v**ed their objection to free b****s living in the town or owning land anywhere in the colony. That year, the colonial assembly passed a law in accordance with this sentiment, prohibiting free b****s or mulattoes from residing in any town in the colony. It also forbid them to buy land or go into business without the consent of the town. The provisions were retroactive, so that if any black person had managed to buy land, the deed was rendered void, and a black resident of a town, however long he had been there, was now subject to prosecution at the discretion of the selectmen. Massachusetts in 1788 prescribed flogging for non-resident b****s who stayed more than two months. Less than four months after its Congressmen v**ed against the restrictions on black settlement in the Missouri Compromise, Massachusetts set up a legislative committee to investigate such legislation for its own sake. From 1813 to 1852, Pennsylvania was constantly debating exclusion, under pressure of petitions from the counties along the Mason-Dixon Line.

Like the black codes of the South and Midwest in the 19th century, enforcement of Northern colonial race laws was selective, and their real value lay in harassment and discouragement of further settlement, and in being a constant reminder to free b****s that their existence was precarious and dependent on white toleration. Across the North, such laws were the sword hung above the heads of a whole black population: Step out of line, make one false move, and you could be shipped out, or sold into s***ery. You wouldn't have the right to face your (white) accuser in court (as you would in, say, ante-bellum Louisiana). Anti-sodomy laws still are on the books in some states; their defenders point out that they are rarely invoked, but that does not make their potential targets feel safer living under them. It gets to the gist of what makes s***ery itself, however comfortable, always worse than freedom, however miserable. Many Southern s***es, perhaps the mass of them, lived better than most northern industrial laborers, when you quantify their work requirements, nutrition, and life expectancy. But the s***e could be, at any moment, and with no recourse, stripped, beaten, whipped, violated, and sold. That �could be� embraces all the evil of s***ery.

So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.
In the South, where s***ery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.[3]

The NORTHWEST
The new states that entered the union in the North after the end of s***ery were just as concerned with their racial purity as the old ones. To do so, they turned to an old practice in the North: the exclusion law. S***es could not be brought into the Northwest Territories, under the ordinance of 1787, but s***es already there were to continue in bondage. Once states began to emerge from the old territories, most of them explicitly barred b****s or permitted them only if they could prove their freedom and post bond. Ohio offered the first example, and those that followed her into the union followed her lead on race.

S***ery was abolished in Ohio by the state's original constitution (1802). But at the same time, Ohio, with s***e-state Kentucky across the river, aggressively barred black immigration. When Virginian John Randolph's 518 s***es were emancipated and a plan was hatched to settle them in southern Ohio, the population rose up in indignation. An Ohio congressman warned that if the attempt were made, �the banks of the Ohio ... would be lined with men with muskets on their shoulders to keep off the emancipated s***es.�[4] Even the abolitionists in this region pitched their appeal, in part, to the desire for a homogenous (white) states. They claimed that attempts by b****s to immigrate into the state would end when s***ery ended and b****s had no more cause to flee the South for �the uncongenial North.�

According to historian Leon F. Litwack, Ohio �provided a classic example of how anti-immigration legislation could be invoked to harass Negro residents.�[5] The state had enacted Black Laws in 1804 and 1807 that compelled b****s entering the state to post bond of $500 guaranteeing good behavior and to produce a court paper as proof that they were free. �No extensive effort was made to enforce the bond requirement until 1829, when the rapid increase of the Negro population alarmed Cincinnati. The city authorities announced that the Black Laws would be enforced and ordered Negroes to comply or leave within thirty days.� Citizens of the city's �Little Africa� -- largely a ghetto of wooden shacks owned by w****s -- appealed for a delay, and sent a delegation to Canada to try to find a place to settle there. But if the authorities were willing to offer more time, the Ohio mob was not, and w****s in packs began to roam through the black neighborhoods, burning and beating. The delegation came back from Upper Canada with the offer of a safe home from the governor. �Tell the Republicans on your side of the line that we royalists do not know men by their color. Should you come to us you will be entitled to all the privileges of the rest of His Majesty's subjects.� About half of the city's 2,200 b****s left, most of them apparently going to Canada. The proponents of strict enforcement of the Black Laws then discovered that they had driven off �the sober, honest, industrious, and useful portion of the colored population,� and their absence had lifted �much of the moral restraint ... on the idle and indolent, as well as the profligate� among the rest.[6]

B****s petitioned against the exclusion laws, but the state legislature denied they had the right to petition the government "for any purpose whatsoever." Finally, after the Free Soil Party gained a degree of power in the state in 1849, a compromise partially repealed the Black Laws, ending the bond-posting requirement. It was a rare, if not unique, instance of a Northern state loosening its restrictions on black settlement.

The northern tier of the state had been settled by good stock from southern New England and to a degree shared in the liberal and abolitionist religion and politics of that region. But when it came to an issue like integrating schools, the people's plain feelings revealed themselves. When the public school system spread to Ohio, citizens and legislators alike objected to educating b****s from public funds, in part because it would tend to encourage other b****s to come there and settle. In the end, the state, like Pennsylvania, required its district school directors to set up separate facilities for black and white children. The Ohio courts upheld this segregation in 1850 and 1859, rejecting the idea of integration and declaring that, �whether consistent with true philanthropy or not ... there ... still is an almost invincible repugnance to such communion and fellowship.�

Yet segregation was not enough for many Ohio w****s, and they insulted, opposed, and sometimes literally attacked private schools set up to teach black children. W****s destroyed newly opened schools for b****s in Zanesville in 1837 and Troy in 1840. Similar mass resistance took place in Vermont and Connecticut.

In the 1830s, Oberlin College decided to open its doors to black students. As soon as the plan became known "panic and despair" seized students, faculty, and town residents. The chief proponent of the plan hastened to assure them that he had no intention to let the place get �full up with filthy stupid negroes,� but the controversy continued. The board of trustees tried to table the plan, but by now the abolitionists were aroused and would accept no retreat. In the end, in 1835, the trustees punted the decision to the faculty, which was known to favor black admissions. The change threatened the very existence of the college. From New England, the quarter from which much of the school's student body and money came, the college's financial agent wrote predicting disaster. �For as soon as your darkies begin to come in in any considerable numbers, unless they are completely separated ... the w****s will begin to leave -- and at length your Institute will change colour. Why not have a black Institution, Dyed in the wool -- and let Oberlin be?�[7] The college survived integration, mostly because before 1860 only a token handful of b****s was admitted. In 1860, the figure for black students was 4 percent. Still, the school was shockingly integrated by Northern standards. A Massachusetts girl wrote home from the school in 1852, assuring her family, �that we don't have to kiss the N***ars nor speak to them,� and only about six �pure N***ars� were at the school, the rest looked like mulattoes, and anyway they dressed better than most of the white students.

Both Indiana (1816) and Illinois (1818) abolished s***ery by their constitutions. And both followed the Ohio policy of trying to prevent black immigration by passing laws requiring b****s who moved into the state to produce legal documents verifying that they were free and posting bond to guarantee their good behavior. The bond requirements ranged as high as $1,000, which was prohibitive for a b***k A******n in those days. Anti-immigration legislation passed in Illinois in 1819, 1829, and 1853. In Indiana, such laws were enacted in 1831 and 1852. Michigan Territory passed such a law in 1827; Iowa Territory passed one in 1839 and Iowa enacted another in 1851 after it became a state. Oregon Territory passed such a law in 1849.[8] B****s who violated the law faced punishments that included advertisement and sale at public auction (Illinois, 1853).

The evidence seems to support the theory that these rules were not uniformly enforced. But they were invoked against "troublesome" black residents, or they could be used against whole communities, as in Cincinnati, when white citizens found the increase in black population had reached an unacceptable level. They served b****s as grinding reminders of apartheid intentions and legal subjugation, and they offered white authorities and Northern mobs a cloak for harassment and violence.

Exclusion ordinances often were advanced by self-professed friends of the freemen who foresaw only tragedy in attempts of the races to share the land. Robert Dale Owen, speaking in Indiana in 1850, asked if any decent person desired �the continuance among us of a race to whom we are not willing to accord the most common protection against outrage and death.� The writers in such cases seem honestly troubled by the plight of free b****s. The rhetoric hardly is an exaggeration: during the constitutional debate in the state that year, one speaker had frankly acknowledged, �It would be better to k**l them off at once, if there is no other way to get rid of them. ... We know how the Puritans did with the Indians, who were infinitely more magnanimous and less impudent than the colored race.�

Not content with mere legislation, Illinois, Indiana, and Oregon had anti-immigration provisions built into their constitutions. In Illinois (1848), in clause-by-clause v****g, this clause was approved by v**ers by more than 2 to 1. Most of the opposition to it came from the northern counties of the state, where b****s were few. In Indiana (1851), it was approved by a larger margin than the constitution itself. In Oregon (1857), the v**e for it was 8 to 1. The Illinois act stayed on the books until 1865. The Black Codes dealt with more than just settlement. Oregon forbid b****s to hold real estate, make contracts, or bring lawsuits. Illinois, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, and California prohibited them from testifying in cases where a white man was a party.

Indiana's anti-immigration rule was challenged in the case of a black man convicted for bringing a black woman into the state to marry her. The state Supreme Court upheld the conviction, noting that, �The policy of the state is ... clearly evolved. It is to exclude any further ingress of negroes, and to remove those already among us as speedily as possible.� There was no legal segregation in Indiana's public schools: none was necessary. The white citizens of the state would keep the schools racially pure more thoroughly than any legal provision could. A court upheld the white-only Indiana public schools in 1850, finding that, in the eyes of the state, �black children were deemed unfit associates of w****s, as school companions.�

Wisconsin was one of the first states to establish black suffrage, but this was accomplished only through a Supreme Court decision after suffrage had been defeated repeatedly at the polls. Like many in the North, Wisconsin residents disliked s***ery, but they also felt no desire to integrate with b****s, whom they felt were inferior. A committee of the 1846 statehood convention proposed an article granting suffrage to �white citizens of the United States,� foreign residents who intended to become citizens and certain Indians. A few idealists urged that the word �white� be deleted, but they were opposed by the majority. The convention ultimately agreed to submit to the v**ers a separate article allowing black suffrage. The 1846 constitution was v**ed down for reasons unrelated to suffrage; but the suffrage article also was defeated decisively, with only 34 percent in favor.

The 1847-48 constitutional convention resolved the suffrage issue by agreeing that the Legislature could allow black suffrage at any time, provided that the law was "submitted to the v**e of the people at a general e******n, and approved by a majority of all the v**es cast at such e******n." The compromise appealed to the delegates because a v**e for it could be defended as a v**e for popular sovereignty rather than for black e******y or abolitionism. The first state Legislature promptly passed a black suffrage law and authorized a referendum, which took place in 1849. The law was approved by a v**e of 5,265 to 4,075. However, fewer than half of all v**ers casting b****ts at the e******n v**ed on the suffrage issue; therefore, the law had failed. The Legislature passed new suffrage laws in 1857 and again in 1865. The v**ers rejected both laws, although the pro-suffrage v**e increased from 41 percent in 1857 to 46 percent in 1865.[9]

When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow b****s to v**e. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free b****s from entering the state. B****s who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor." Even those that didn't exclude b****s debated doing so and had discriminatory ordinances on the local level.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Lorenzo Johnston Greene, �The Negro in Colonial New England, 1620-1776,� N.Y.: Columbia University Press, 1942, p.302.
2. free b****s v**ed in Virginia until 1723, in North Carolina until 1715, in South Carolina until 1701, and in Georgia until 1754. See Albert E. McKinley, �Suffrage Franchise in the Thirteen English Colonies in America,� Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1905.
3. Alexis De Tocqueville, �Democracy in America,� t***sl. George Lawrence, Harper & Row, 1966, p.343.
4. �Congressional Globe,� 30 Cong. 1 Sess., appendix, p.727.
5. Leon F. Litwack, �North of S***ery,� Chicago, 1961, p.72.
6. �Cincinnati Gazette,� Aug. 17, 1829.
7. Robert S. Fletcher, �History of Oberlin College,� 1943, vol. II, p.523.
8. Henry W. Farnam, �Chapters in the History of Social Legislation in the United States to 1860,� Washington: Carnegie Institution, 1938, pp.219-20.
9. John G. Gregory, �Negro Suffrage in Wisconsin,� T***sactions of the Wisconsin Academy of Sciences, Art and Letters, XI (1898), pp. 94-101.



2003 - S***ery in the North - About the Author StatCounter - Free Web Tracker and Counter

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Rule No. 18: The worst r****ts are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that b****s and Hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance.



Wrong. Affirmative Action was instituted to prevent discrimination. From Executive order 11246:

"The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or t***sfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and se******n for training, including apprenticeship."


Rule: 8: It’s not r****t to note that white liberalism managed to do in about thirty years something that three hundred years of s***ery could not, seriously damage the black family, generally though not universally, and ruin it completely over wide swaths.

Wrong again.

"Ens***ed people lived with the perpetual possibility of separation through the sale of one or more family members. S***eowners’ wealth lay largely in the people they owned, therefore, they frequently sold and or purchased people as finances warranted. A multitude of scenarios brought about sale. An ens***ed person could be sold as part of an estate when his owner died, or because the owner needed to liquidate assets to pay off debts, or because the owner thought the ens***ed person was a troublemaker. A father might be sold away by his owner while the mother and children remained behind, or the mother and children might be sold. Ens***ed families were also divided for inheritance when an owner died, or because the owners’ adult children moved away to create new lives, taking some of the ens***ed people with them. These decisions were, of course, beyond the control of the people whose lives they affected most. Sometimes an ens***ed man or woman pleaded with an owner to purchase his or her spouse to avoid separation. The intervention was not always successful. Historian Michael Tadman has estimated that approximately one third of ens***ed children in the upper South states of Maryland and Virginia experienced family separation in one of three possible scenarios: sale away from parents; sale with mother away from father; or sale of mother or father away from child. The fear of separation haunted adults who knew how likely it was to happen. Young children, innocently unaware of the possibilities, learned quickly of the pain that such separations could cost."

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/tserve/freedom/1609-1865/essays/aafamilies.htm

GOPisEVIL

The only problem with your reply to the r****t moron is that what you wrote is ... TRUE...so instead of replying to what you wrote, he will start another topic full of lies somewhere else.

(Thanks for challenging the r****t bastard, tho.)

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

It is like playing whack a mole sometimes, isn't it?

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Everyone today believes that s***ery was horrid, terrible that b****s were treated as they were, were not considered full persons, and everyone today is glad it is gone, glad b****s have the same rights as w****s.

Rule No. 18: The worst r****ts are liberals, mostly white ones, who assume that b****s and Hispanics are so inferior that only affirmative action in perpetuity would give them a remotely fair chance.
This is how sometimes a possibly good idea becomes a horrid idea. Problem is that the political left is incapable of seeing the harm they often do, all in the name of compassion. I think set asides are as insulting as hell - and I wouldn't put myself in that position. My dad was as poor as they come, but he would have died before taking a handout or being treated as special because he NEEDED help. I know how he thought, and he was determined about it. I have no reason to think black people think any differently. But YOU think all b****s think like you and should be treated as such.

An affirmative action hiree can never, ever claim he did well because he was a valuable employee. He will always remember that w****s thought him incapable of getting ahead without special treatment, and that special treatment branded him "one who had to be helped because on his own worth, he couldn't make it". And it is the same thinking that goes into special privileges of all sorts that the political left comes up with. There is NOTHING the Democrat Party has done well except WWII, and if we fought such a war today, Democrats would call us cruel and heartless. Democrats of today would v**e for John Kennedy because he was a democrat, but they would despise his thinking because he believed in a strong America.

You can cite all you want, opinions don't mean diddly. What is important are the facts, and you cannot deny the fact that things are worse in this country than they ever have been in our lifetimes - and it is because of the way Democrats use politics and the fact that Republican politicians roll over and play dead as a result of the treatments they get from Democrats.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Your slanted view betrays you.

The "special treatment" of affirmative action was designed to dismantle institutional, governmental, and legal discrimination. It is interesting to me that you think:
" An affirmative action hiree can never, ever claim he did well because he was a valuable employee. He will always remember that w****s thought him incapable of getting ahead without special treatment, and that special treatment branded him "one who had to be helped because on his own worth, he couldn't make it".
Because I have never heard that, and I hang out with a lot of liberals. That is something you might think, but not me.

Another myth you keep telling yourself: that liberals don't believe in a strong America. The idea is preposterous. You think only conservatives built this country, I'll bet.

And opinions don't mean diddly? And you follow it with an opinion?

So, I take your opinion for what it's worth...diddly. You claim modern liberals are the source of evil in the world. Your political views are rigid and unchangeable. Liberals will always be the source of evil until they agree with you. I get that. What I don't get is why you are so mad at people who you claim are exactly what you are: idealogicly hide-bound.

OldSchool Loc: Moving to the Red State of Utah soon!

I take your opinion for what it's worth...diddly. BTW, conservatives did build this country...liberals only know how to destroy it.

working class stiff Loc: N. Carolina

Nailed it! :roll:

Brian Devon

Hey Old School, you can come down from your cross now. We need the wood...

:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown: :thumbdown:

rjoeholl

Why do you need the wood? There are some perfectly good "shovel ready" coal mines available.

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My views are not quaint, unusual, nor merely MY views. They are the views of many people, including many b****s. You may want to read a post of mine, http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-12968-1.html

The article was written by a black man. Here is one of his quotes:
"You would have to absolutely loathe black people to want to keep them mired in generational poverty and ignorance, living in ghettos with high unemployment, with their kids shackled to failing K-12 urban school systems and crime-ridden neighborhoods just to secure a permanent v****g majority and to hang onto political power.

This is borderline sociopathic behavior.

Black people are survivors. We have survived s***ery, Jim Crow laws and other forms of discrimination. We can overcome the burden of liberal policies if they just leave us alone to get out of this predicament by ourselves.

I find it insulting that liberals view us in such an infantile manner, implying that we cannot make it without their help.

Once we free our minds of this debilitating government dependency and liberals get their boot off our necks, we can begin to rebuild our community."

Another black man, Larry Elder, said, "America traditionally represents the greatest possibility of someone's going from nothing to something. Why? In theory, if not practice, the government stays out of the way and lets individuals take risks and reap rewards or accept the consequences of failure. We call this capitalism - or, at least, we used to."

You might also want to read some of Thomas Sowell's articles, and see how conservative b****s perceive the things YOU embrace. Liberals, such as yourself, have your mind set that all the "help" you insist the rest of us give to b****s is compassionate. No conservative thinks like that, including black conservatives. All conservatives believe these programs do far more harm than good. But I suppose your concern doesn't also cover conservative b****s, only the liberal ones. Now THAT is compassion!!! Ah, yes, the democrats belittle conservative b****s for being so stupid as to be manhandled by conservative w****s, and liberal b****s call them Uncle Toms. Yes, the party of the progressives is compassionate all right! Compassionate like Hitler.