Last edited by jamesrage; 06-30-09 at 11:25 AM.
"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"
Cicero Marcus Tullius
Using that definition of afirmatve is racism since to grant some group precedence over another group based upon race alone is racist by that definition. Racial descrimination is against the law. Having said that then afirmative action is against the law. So to correct the sins of past racism and descrimination "we ' allowed descrimination and racism to be used to do that. Is that fighting fire with fire ? Or can someone say fighting stupidity with stupidity ?
Last edited by F107HyperSabr; 06-30-09 at 11:57 AM.
“I do not recall the Viet Cong asking me if I was a natural born or Naturalized American before they shot at me, they just shot at all of us “ f107HyperSabr
What would that broad have to do for you to see her racism, rule against a bunch of white men that studied for and took a test honestly and passed who were idscriinated against by a city that refused to certify their own test because not one black man studied well enough to pass?
It's her job to annul laws that do not conform to such basic constitutional standards, and her racism prevented her from doing that.