• 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!

Alabama Pastor holds 'whites only' conference

I'll let William Lacy Clay Jr ( D-Mo) explain it to you.... when representive Steve Cohen ( a white dude) petition ot join, he was turned down... this is what Clay said in an official statement from his office


excluding whites.. check.
displaying superiority of blacks... check.

done and done... what say you now?


I think his position on this is wrong, narrow minded and bad strategy. The CBC should accept white membership. In fact, I do not believe they should be allowed to discriminate on that basis. I feel the same about Hootie's country club.
 
This is a church meeting. If they wanna exclude people based on their color, they are perfectly allowed too. Anyone who attempts to infringe upon that right is just giving them ammunition to complain, and really just adding fuel to the hatred fire. When are we gonna learn that hate don't stop hate?

Btw...I am sick of butt hurt "politically correct" people complaining about how some things are racist, and just as sick of the racist crowd too. It is old now. Seriously...gotta learn to let things go sometimes.
 
I think his position on this is wrong, narrow minded and bad strategy. The CBC should accept white membership. In fact, I do not believe they should be allowed to discriminate on that basis. I feel the same about Hootie's country club.

we are in agreement then...

maybe not over a country club though, depending... private entities are allowed a bit of deference in regards to who they allow as members.... but i'm not to keen on deciding membership along racial lines.
in government , hell no.... in the private sector, it depends on a few things.. but it's overall distasteful.
 
you're playing word games.

does the CBC believe that black people are physically and intellectually superior to white people, or not?????
sorry, not playing word games... but you are deflecting once again, that much is abundantly clear.

yes, they believe whites are inferior in seeing to the policy concerns of black people.... that's why those particular Democrats engage in racial discrimination when they disallow membership based upon nothing more than skin colors.



sad really, you are faced with an example of blatant racism... and you fold like lawn chair...
some principles you have :roll:
 
You seem to be the one fixated on Obama's racial background.
Fixated? Other than one Halfrican-American comment when have I talked about his race?

Last time people voted for history. This time lets vote for sense.

I bet he makes a bigger deal of it than I do. And his very racist justice department that declines to prosecute crimes committed by people with a certain skin tone should cause far greater concern than anything I say.
 
Not coming back on you, I understand you don't endorse it. Just cracking a joke about you saying "get off the cross" in this situation.
I hope you dont think I didnt leave the double entendre out there without a purpose... ;)
 
I have lived all over. I have lived in Europe, in about a dozen states, including Texas and California. I live in the greater Huntsville area. I have met brown racists and black racists who were all too happy to share their racism with me. Just no whites.

You're fighting an uphill battle. You are fighting against liberals who want it to be legal to burn the American flag yet illegal to burn crosses.
 
This is just an excuse...nothing more.

You have your template. If the white congressional caucus introduced bills to shovel money and benefits to predominantly white neighborhoods would you object?

Just for fun, do white people pay most of the federal income taxes? I know I pay a very large amount. I am part of the 53% who pay the federal income tax.

Why do you keep asking me questions I already answered? Are you hoping for a different answer?

But plenty of poor whites need help from government as well. The problem here is that while they may be poor and often in a bad situation to be able to personally help themselves (which always should be the first option if there is opportunity to do so), often culturally, these same people will resent help.
 
Last edited:
Why do you keep asking me questions I already answered? Are you hoping for a different answer?

But plenty of poor whites need help from government as well. The problem here is that while they may be poor and often in a bad situation to be able to personally help themselves (which always should be the first option if there is opportunity to do so), often culturally, these same people will resent help.

It occurs to me that we are in the mess we are in because many people think that the government is there to take from one group to "help" another group. Once governments start down that path the end will be tyranny. States cannot get there without massive taxes and massive regulations. In my opinion that is why governments fail.
 
You're fighting an uphill battle. You are fighting against liberals who want it to be legal to burn the American flag yet illegal to burn crosses.

As opposed to conservatives who think it should be legal to burn crosses, but not the flag?

Nobody's saying it should be "illegal." But we are calling this out for what it is - a bunch of prejudiced white guys burning a cross. Which sounds exactly like a KKK meeting to me.
 
You're fighting an uphill battle. You are fighting against liberals who want it to be legal to burn the American flag yet illegal to burn crosses.

burning both should be completely legal. But having something sanctioned under free speech doesn't mean the individuals carrying out such an act are above criticism (which is also an act of free speech).
 
You're fighting an uphill battle. You are fighting against liberals who want it to be legal to burn the American flag yet illegal to burn crosses.

that's because burning a cross on SOMEONE ELSES property is an act of violent intimidation.
 
that's because burning a cross on SOMEONE ELSES property is an act of violent intimidation.

in virginia vs black the court recognized that cross burning had a historical context to it that could be used to convey a credible threat against another (which they ruled was perfectly fine to prosecute), they also recognized that it was be used as a symbol of group solidarity (which is still protected speech, and which the incident in the op most resembles))

always struck me as a well thought out and reasonable position.
 
Last edited:
You're fighting an uphill battle. You are fighting against liberals who want it to be legal to burn the American flag yet illegal to burn crosses.

Not this one, Mr Reb. So we are clear:

1. There is a history of slavery, de jure racial inferiority, present de facto racial discrimination in hiring and business, and de facto relative economic deprivation suffered by black people.

2. Against that backdrop and in the present environment some racial prejudice by blacks as against whites is not morally or ethically objectionable.

3. Against that backdrop and in the present environment any overt racial prejudice and exclusive groups whose organizing principle is their superiority or claims of white racial grievance is the height of distasteful and completely lacks moral or ethical license.

4. I am against the CBC excluding white members in that it is (a) a bad strategic stance and a bad tacit to take. The organizing principle is to solve race based problems born of exclusion, so to be exclusive in that way is illogical; (b) the fact that it is the people's house makes racially exclusive groups objectionable.

5. The country club issue is dicey. I understand a freedom to associate and that includes the freedom of some people to exclude others. It's still ugly and especially hurtful when a club is a symbol of privilege and success or social rank and it is wielded against a race in its very bylaws.

6. Burn a cross/ burn a flag/ burn high grade marijuana, I don't care. (just don't drive a car)

7. In a few limited cases I am amenable to race based preferences for minorities to remediate intractable structural discrimination. I don't like a lot of it b/c I am totally for a meritocracy. But sometimes things are so bad that the numbers simply prove a case to justify bending those rules.
 
Last edited:
2. Against that backdrop and in the present environment some racial prejudice by blacks as against whites is not morally or ethically objectionable.

it's not? What is this based on, the principle of "two wrongs make a right"?
 
...2. Against that backdrop and in the present environment some racial prejudice by blacks as against whites is not morally or ethically objectionable....

such excusing & justifying of racism against innocent people, is ignorant, absurd, and irresponsible.

there are consequences to such statements, sometimes deadly ones.
 
Let's say it is. So? What now? Do those few poor white people have more power than black congress-critters?

Again I ask. Provide me a quote, or even something arguably similar, of the CBC stating that the black race is the "Chosen People"

Of ocusre you won't provide such a thing, you'll just continue to try and ignore the topic, continue to refrain from saying even a mild word of rebuke towards the group that's ACTUALLY being discussed in the OP, refused to actually take even CLOSE to the similar stand in terms of accusations of that group as you do to liberals in general, the CBC, or other "left" groups, and then continue to act all offended and shocked when people suggest that there is tacit approval or at the very least acceptance by some in this thread of the KKK and OBVIOUS racism and suggest that you're attempting to distract by childish whining of "BUT BUT...LIBERALS ARE BAD!" while trying to defend and/or excuse the grou pi nthe OP
 
it's not? What is this based on, the principle of "two wrongs make a right"?

First....I really hope you stick around and post more. Seem to be rather sensable and take the time to put thought into replies.

Secondly....amen. This goes back to a discussion Tucker and I had in the "white privledge" thread. One can think that blacks have been given a bad hand due to their race and treated horribly while at the same time thinking that such a thing does not somehow mean that it justifies wrong perpetrated by a black man. Two wrong's don't make a right. Racism, Prejudice, and Bigotry are Racism, Prejudice, and Bigotry regardless of color and is not a good thing in general regardless of the individuals color. While perhaps at some points it may be more "understandable" that it occurs...and even that could be said at times for a white person....something being "understandable" doesn't make it "correct. Racial based prejudice of blacks against whites is no less morally or ethically objectionable than the other way around. Perhaps a bit more "understandable", but not less objectionable.
 
There are a few different groups I seem to notice when it comes to these types of scenarios.

1. Some people think that it is wrong for anyone to be excluded from a group/event/club/whatever based on the color of their skin regardless of what color they are.

2. Some people think that it is wrong to exclude minorities from a group/event/club/whatever based on the color of their skin.

3. Some people think that it is wrong to exclude whites from a group/event/club/whatever based on the color of their skin.

4. Some people think people should be allowed to do what they want.

If you fall in to group 2 or 3, you are a racist. You should accept that.
 
There are a few different groups I seem to notice when it comes to these types of scenarios.

1. Some people think that it is wrong for anyone to be excluded from a group/event/club/whatever based on the color of their skin regardless of what color they are.

2. Some people think that it is wrong to exclude minorities from a group/event/club/whatever based on the color of their skin.

3. Some people think that it is wrong to exclude whites from a group/event/club/whatever based on the color of their skin.

4. Some people think people should be allowed to do what they want.

If you fall in to group 2 or 3, you are a racist. You should accept that.

They have every right to do whatever they want. I have yet to see anybody say otherwise. As Misterveritis pointed out, we'll let what they say and do be the measure of who they are.

They said they believe whites are superior, and they will be burning a cross. Go ahead and make your own judgement of who they are based on that.
 
So we're both a racist and an overly politically correct nation simultaneously?
 
Back
Top Bottom