• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters

Jackson
Sharpton
Keyes
Powell hinted at running.

Those I know of.

Sharpton was a race baiter... Jackson same... Keyes is a bit nutters at times and Powell... he MIGHT of had a chance back in the day.
 
But that does not change the fact that racism does exist in the US and around the world, and in the US it is often pushed under the rug, especially by the Republican party.

If you're claiming that racism exists then we need to strictly define the nature and scope of what you mean by racism. Is there overt bias? Laws now work to prohibit and punish outright expressions of racism. Is there covert bias? Probably, but I can't see any laws being able to change what is in the hearts and minds of people but which is not expressed in a way that can be proven to be racist. Is there institutional bias? Probably not. Many people assume that institutional bias exists because they see statistical discrepancies between groups, but these discrepancies usually aren't interpreted fairly. For instance racial wage discrepancies, when we control for cognitive differences, disappeared back in the late 70s:
The analyses of the General Social Survey data from 1974 to 2000 replicate earlier findings from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth that racial disparity in earnings disappears once cognitive ability is controlled for. The results are robust across many alternative specifications, and further show that blacks receive significantly greater returns to their cognitive ability than nonblacks. The trend data show that there was no sign of racial discrimination in the United States as early as 1970s. The analyses call into question the necessity of and justification for preferential treatment of ethnic minorities.

Here is a chart which shows the returns to the highest levels of education.

mastersdegreeshs9.gif
 
Race doesn't matter it is the culture of certain races.

No, race matters, and it matters across a whole spectrum of measurement variables. For instance, many people argue that it is the culture found in many Asian households that yields the infamous academic success found in Asian students. However, when researchers measured the academic success of White students who were raised in homes that stressed the familial principles stressed in Asian homes, the White students did worse than their peers raised in homes not stressing these "Asian" values.
 
If you're claiming that racism exists then we need to strictly define the nature and scope of what you mean by racism. Is there overt bias? Laws now work to prohibit and punish outright expressions of racism. Is there covert bias? Probably, but I can't see any laws being able to change what is in the hearts and minds of people but which is not expressed in a way that can be proven to be racist. Is there institutional bias? Probably not. Many people assume that institutional bias exists because they see statistical discrepancies between groups, but these discrepancies usually aren't interpreted fairly. For instance racial wage discrepancies, when we control for cognitive differences, disappeared back in the late 70s:

Here is a chart which shows the returns to the highest levels of education.

mastersdegreeshs9.gif

Larry Elder ran through a whole litany of statistics during the election about the race issue. Time after time he illustrated there is no race issue except in the minds of the Liberals.

Amazon.com: Stupid Black Men: How to Play the Race Card--and Lose: Larry Elder: Books

A party that would vote men and women to war for political expediency and then turn their backs on them, attack them and their effort... also for political expediency... is a party that will also foment racial tensions for their own benefit.
 
Last edited:
No, race matters, and it matters across a whole spectrum of measurement variables. For instance, many people argue that it is the culture found in many Asian households that yields the infamous academic success found in Asian students. However, when researchers measured the academic success of White students who were raised in homes that stressed the familial principles stressed in Asian homes, the White students did worse than their peers raised in homes not stressing these "Asian" values.

That sounds like different cultural expectations to me.

If your peers of similar culture are not subject to the same rules then you begin to wonder why you are and get less motivated.

I honestly just don't give a **** what color someone is. I'm way more interested on where they come from and what it is like.
 
You're disgusting.
Why especially republicans?
We have always aimed for equality under the law.
Always.

James Taranto reported on some research which validates this point:
As Iyengar and his colleagues subsequently dug deeper into these data, another finding emerged: Republicans consistently gave less aid, and gave over a shorter period of time, to victims regardless of race.

Democrats and independents were far more generous; on average, they gave Katrina victims on average more than $1,500 a month, compared with $1,200 for Republicans, and for 13 months instead of nine.

But for Democrats, race mattered--and in a disturbing way. Overall, Democrats were willing to give whites about $1,500 more than they chose to give to a black or other minority. (Even with this race penalty, Democrats still were willing to give more to blacks than those principled Republicans.) "Republicans are likely to be more stringent, both in terms of money and time, Iyengar said. "However, their position is 'principled' in the sense that it stems from a strong belief in individualism (as opposed to handouts). Thus their responses to the assistance questions are relatively invariant across the different media conditions. Independents and Democrats, on the other hand, are more likely to be affected by racial cues." . . .

Iyengar said he's not surprised by the latest findings: "This pattern of results matches perfectly an earlier study I did on race and crime" with Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. of UCLA. "Republicans supported tough treatment of criminals no matter what they encountered in the news. Others were more elastic in their position, coming to support more harsh measures when the criminal suspect they encountered was non-white."
 
That sounds like different cultural expectations to me.

If your peers of similar culture are not subject to the same rules then you begin to wonder why you are and get less motivated.

I honestly just don't give a **** what color someone is. I'm way more interested on where they come from and what it is like.

It has to be terrible to have people wonder if you are really qualified, if you really have the merit or are a product of quotas.

Jason Blair, who was mentored by Joe Biden, spoke about this pressure/reality.

Let's just have a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may. I'd love absolutely color blind, merit based progress of individuals. It's best for everyone, for society as a whole. That would be a great gift, a great example for the world to see and follow.

It's the brilliant stroke of trust in mankind the Founding fathers blessed this nation with and put in our hands to achieve. Dr. King believed in this dream. We have reached the mountain top. And we're fumbling it.
 
Last edited:
I think it is horrible legislation with a stupid intent, but I don't think it is racist.

It's racist at the very core of its conception. AA looks at an individual's race and assigns value to that race. That fact that it is assigning positive, rather than negative, value is immaterial. What is pertinent is the use of race in decisions and the presumption that a person of a particular race is a representative of that race, so for diversity purposes, admitting a black man adds to the diversity of the institution. The individual is immaterial to the diversity calculation. What matters is the color of the skin.

If we define racism as seeing individuals for the color of their skin then AA is racist.

If we define racism as only doing bad things to people because of the color of their skin, then a case can still be made that AA is racist, but the case is not as watertight as when the above definition is used.

"right" candidate? What does that mean? That blacks are politically inferior? That it "just wasn't the right time"?

Obama was the right Black candidate, in that he didn't arise from the American Black experience, he didn't build a career as a prominent grievance monger like Jackson and Sharpton, he sounded very white, in short, for a lot of white people, he serves as a role model for how they wish most Blacks should act.
 
It has to be terrible to have people wonder if you are really qualified, if you really have the merit or are a product of quotas.

Jason Blair, who was mentored by Joe Biden, spoke about this pressure/reality.

Let's just have a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may. I'd love absolutely color blind, merit based progress of individuals. It's best for everyone, for society as a whole. That would be a great gift, a great example for the world to see and follow.

It's the brilliant stroke of trust in mankind the Founding fathers blessed this nation with and put in our hands to achieve. Dr. King believed in this dream. We have reached the mountain top. And we're fumbling it.

I agree mostly because it would help me most.

I hate the fact that its not what you know but who you know.
I'm extremely stunted on that front.

But more to the point it would be a wonder to show the world that it never matters what color you are.

Some won't let that happen though.
 
I grew up being told that King guy had the right of it... ya know "judge a man by the merit of his character not the color of his skin..."
Guess no one told him that wasn't the path to riches and power by the race hustle machine.
And yet if King were alive today, the right wing (which has continually attemtped to gloss over King's radical message and reduce his legacy to a pursuit of a merely legal and technical equality of the races and not a substantive one) would condemn his socialist politics and his commitment to non-violence as unAmerican and a threat to our security. If he hadn't already been murdered, the right would be calling for his assassination. King was a radical and a socialist and if you think for an instant that he would be content with the fact that the average black family has 1/8th the net worth or assets of the average white family, or that we have a similar inequality of wealth as Bolivia, then you are sadly mistaken.
I'm sorry, but I cringe when right-wingers invoke King. He was your enemy to the death.
 
And yet if King were alive today, the right wing (which has continually attemtped to gloss over King's radical message and reduce his legacy to a pursuit of a merely legal and technical equality of the races and not a substantive one) would condemn his socialist politics and his commitment to non-violence as unAmerican and a threat to our security. If he hadn't already been murdered, the right would be calling for his assassination. King was a radical and a socialist and if you think for an instant that he would be content with the fact that the average black family has 1/8th the net worth or assets of the average white family, or that we have a similar inequality of wealth as Bolivia, then you are sadly mistaken.
I'm sorry, but I cringe when right-wingers invoke King. He was your enemy to the death.

His equality message was great and that is where it ends.

Socialism will not fix a ****ty culture no matter how hard you wish upon the stars for it to do so.
 
It has to be terrible to have people wonder if you are really qualified, if you really have the merit or are a product of quotas.

Affirmative Action imposes the heaviest cost on the most capable of the minorities favored by AA policies. For instance, when a university admits Blacks who are underqualified for admission it creates a stigma, and a well deserved stigma, that most Blacks are not qualified for admission. Yet there will always be a few Blacks who are more than qualified and would have easily been admitted even without favoritism. For the rest of their academic career they must battle the perception that they didn't earn their place, that they were shown favoritism, that they're underqualified.

The competent pay a very heavy price as they are forced to wear the cloak of AA stigma.

Let's just have a level playing field and let the chips fall where they may. I'd love absolutely color blind, merit based progress of individuals. It's best for everyone, for society as a whole. That would be a great gift, a great example for the world to see and follow.

This outcome is probably best, but it won't be cost free. On the positive side, the economic efficiency of the US would jump radically higher for all of the race-norming procedures we force onto society lower our economic efficiency and actually cost us money. Secondly, the spirit of advancement by merit is more inspiring to people than the spirit of advancement by who one knows or advancement by quota. However, the downside is that the incidence of racial stratification will increase over time and the feeling of victimhood and denied entitlement will increase in those segments of society that can't advance strictly on merit.

These downsides are built right into the very fabric of multiculturalism. If you set out to create a multiculturalist society then you can't escape differential achievement metrics.
 
And yet if King were alive today, the right wing (which has continually attemtped to gloss over King's radical message and reduce his legacy to a pursuit of a merely legal and technical equality of the races and not a substantive one) would condemn his socialist politics and his commitment to non-violence as unAmerican and a threat to our security. If he hadn't already been murdered, the right would be calling for his assassination. King was a radical and a socialist and if you think for an instant that he would be content with the fact that the average black family has 1/8th the net worth or assets of the average white family, or that we have a similar inequality of wealth as Bolivia, then you are sadly mistaken.
I'm sorry, but I cringe when right-wingers invoke King. He was your enemy to the death.
We would condemn his socialist policies. I would condemn them if the guy were yellow, red, white, brown or olive.

If he were running for president and had a pacifist stance I'd oppose him vociferously too.

Tell me, what is wrong with living free lives?
People treated equally under the eyes of the law?

We could twist numbers about wealth all year long. What is the solution? Freedom. Equal rights under the law.

King died in 68. If you were born in 1955 you might have a recollection of a few events. That makes those people... 13 at the time... 54 today. It is a different world today. We don't need these wedges anymore. It is a detriment to society but good for the libs. They have no shame pulling out the race card.

You know, I clearly remember Obama saying "There is not a black American and white American and Latino America and Asian American--there is the United States of America."

Seems these were "words... just words." Otherwise Holder, Attorney General of the United States of America wouldn't have uttered his divisive tripe.

"Cowards"?
 
Last edited:
I think that it's all about spin.

It's like a magician, he wants you to watch him, and not his hands.

As long as we bicker about B.S. like race,the politicians will keep taking our rights away.And not doing the job we elected them to do,while we bicker about B.S.It's all about power and money,and we are not included.
One of these days someone will come knocking on your door with guns and a uniform and tell you what you need to do.

White people are second class citizens,how come we are just Americans and not European-Americans,that's just plain discrimination.
 
Why does my chart say otherwise?


Might as well get the actual numbers.

PINC-03 Table of Contents


Median for Whites:

Bachelors: 48k
Masters: 56k
Professional: 90k
Doctorate: 76k


Median for Blacks:

Bachelors: 42k
Masters: 52k
Professional: 67k
Doctorate: 82k

Of course, you have to take these numbers with a grain of salt, as they don't take into account what type of degrees these are.
 
river said:
These downsides are built right into the very fabric of multiculturalism. If you set out to create a multiculturalist society then you can't escape differential achievement metrics.

I think it is slightly more than that. It is not just multi-cultural it is the multi-tone skin color.
 
Of course, you have to take these numbers with a grain of salt, as they don't take into account what type of degrees these are.

Nor do they control for cognitive ability. With Affirmative Action in place minorities are earning degrees and usually place in the lower tiers of intelligence amongst their classmates, so to the extent that cognitive ability aids job performance and job performance is rewarded with increased salary, with educational status held constant, minorities will likely receive lower salaries.
 
We do not need Eric Holder spreading hate.

Ever heard Bill Cosby's pound cake bit? Self-serving race-baiting bigots like Sharpton and Jackson are the ones who would want the officer lynched and the criminal enshrined in eternal victimhood. Obama and Holder are more the types to steal the pound cake for the entire black community while assuring those who follow the rules and work for a living that they're being "patriotic" for surrendering everything they've earned.
 
Last edited:
Ever heard Bill Cosby's pound cake bit? Self-serving race-baiting bigots like Sharpton and Jackson are the ones who would want the officer lynched and the criminal enshrined in eternal victimhood. Obama and Holder are more the types to steal the pound cake for the entire black community while assuring those who follow the rules and work for a living that they're being "patriotic" for surrendering everything they've earned.

Holder needs to be race neutral or he needs to be disbarred and removed from that office.

We do not need an AG that expressed Black Panther idiology. This is a security risk that must be addressed.

Likewise, Afirmative Action is an outdated idea that needs to be scrapped. There is no use for it in today's world except as a spin tool for race-baiting bigots and their minions.
 
Last edited:
Holder needs to be race neutral or he needs to be disbarred and removed from that office.

We do not need an AG that expressed Black Panther idiology. This is a security risk that must be addressed.

Likewise, Afirmative Action is an outdated idea that needs to be scrapped. There is no use for it in today's world except as a spin tool for race-baiting bigots and their minions.

When first enacted Affirmative Action in law around the work place they should have stuck "PLEASE THROW AWAY WHEN BLACK MAN BECOMES PRESIDENT" at the end.

How many racists made their prodding songs about Barack and how many are blacks being racists against Obama compared to non-blacks being racist against Obama?

The only song that pops up into my mind immediately is a black man singing a song about how Obama isn't really black and filled with magic.
 
Back
Top Bottom