• 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!

CPAC Panel On Race: 'Young, White Southern Males' Hurt By Racial Outreach

6

66gardeners

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,651
Reaction score
418
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
At a panel disussion on race at CPAC, Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the GOP. Terry said the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself." "I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said. Smith responded by telling a story about a letter that abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass wrote to his former slaveowner forgiving him for holding him in servitude. "For giving him shelter and food?" asked Terry, as some members of the audience gasped and others laughed.

Think Progress reported that Terry later said he supports segregation. Terry told Think Progress following the panel discussion that he believed that whites have been “systematically disenfranchised” by the federal government. He also told Think Progress he'd "be fine" with a society with blacks subservient to whites. African Americans, he said, should vote in Africa. He claimed the tea party agrees with him. Terry is not the first Southern Republican in recent months to make comments supporting slavery. Last year, several Republican state legislators in Arkansas endorsed slavery in new books, including one who suggested that the practice "may have been a blessing" for slaves by bringing them to the United States. State GOP leaders pulled support for the candidates.

CPAC Panel On Race: 'Young, White Southern Males' Hurt By Racial Outreach

The real victims in America? White men? Who knew.
 
The Conservative Victimization Complex marches on in full force.

Nietzsche on this kind of individual:

How much reverence has a noble man for his enemies!—and such reverence is a bridge to love.—For he desires his enemy for himself, as his mark of distinction; he can endure no other enemy than one in whom there is nothing to despise and very much to honor! In contrast to this, picture 'the enemy' as the man of ressentiment conceives him—and here precisely is his deed, his creation: he has conceived 'the evil enemy,' 'the Evil One,' and this in fact is his basic concept, from which he then evolves, as an afterthought and pendant, a 'good one'—himself!”
Click to expand...
 
66gardeners said:
At a panel disussion on race at CPAC, Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the GOP. Terry said the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself." "I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said. Smith responded by telling a story about a letter that abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass wrote to his former slaveowner forgiving him for holding him in servitude. "For giving him shelter and food?" asked Terry, as some members of the audience gasped and others laughed.

Think Progress reported that Terry later said he supports segregation. Terry told Think Progress following the panel discussion that he believed that whites have been “systematically disenfranchised” by the federal government. He also told Think Progress he'd "be fine" with a society with blacks subservient to whites. African Americans, he said, should vote in Africa. He claimed the tea party agrees with him. Terry is not the first Southern Republican in recent months to make comments supporting slavery. Last year, several Republican state legislators in Arkansas endorsed slavery in new books, including one who suggested that the practice "may have been a blessing" for slaves by bringing them to the United States. State GOP leaders pulled support for the candidates.

CPAC Panel On Race: 'Young, White Southern Males' Hurt By Racial Outreach

The real victims in America? White men? Who knew.
Click to expand...

I would haven to agree with him. life is much harder without slaves. Of course, i do snicker a little at the white trash slaves of the right complaining because they don't get slaves. Oh, did that poor deluded fellow think the rich white guys were going to share their power and money if he supported them? Oh poor silly little white guy, why would you share money and riches with a really stupid tool? Conservatives don't support racism, they just magically attract large number of racists for no reason at all.

I can hear the conservative whine machine starting now.
 
The man is a contemptible fool. It is fortunate that free speech allows such witless buffoons to out themselves before they are granted any significant power.
 
The man in the video said and I'll paraphrase "Why can't we be more like Booker T Washington Republicans?"

For those that may not know, Booker T was infamous for saying "In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress"

This was called the "Atlanta Compromise".

I believe people of all political stripes, race, and creeds agree with these words more than they care to admit. They're just afraid to be honest with themselves.

Don't just look at words, look at actions...
 
ChezC3 said:
The man in the video said and I'll paraphrase "Why can't we be more like Booker T Washington Republicans?"

For those that may not know, Booker T was infamous for saying "In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress"

This was called the "Atlanta Compromise".

I believe people of all political stripes, race, and creeds agree with these words more than they care to admit. They're just afraid to be honest with themselves.

Don't just look at words, look at actions...
Click to expand...

Um...

Essential elements of the agreement were that blacks would not ask for the right to vote, they would not retalliate against racist behavior, they would tolerate segregation and discrimination, that they would receive free basic education, education would be limited to vocational or industrial training (for instance as teachers or nurses), liberal arts education would be prohibited (for instance, college education in the classics, humanities, art, or literature).
Click to expand...

Hell no. Utterly ridiculous. Baselesss. Ignorant. People who think others who disagree with that kind of idiocy are not being honest with themselves are among the most deluded and self deceiving bunch in the human condition.
 
CriticalThought said:
Um...



Hell no. Utterly ridiculous. Baselesss. Ignorant. People who think others who disagree with that kind of idiocy are not being honest with themselves are among the most deluded and self deceiving bunch in the human condition.
Click to expand...

Well, tell me what you really think.... Now, had you asked for clarification or perhaps read my words more closely, not adding to them as I had said "agree with these words " those words being what I quoted Booker T as saying, not the entire layout of what the Atlanta Compromise entails, you'd see that it would be a hell yes, astutely observed, founded on empirical evidence conclusion.

Now before you continue with your rabid renunciation of the ridiculous, do you perhaps have more you'd like to contribute other than adjectives and assumptions based on arguments in which you are the author?
 
ChezC3 said:
Well, tell me what you really think.... Now, had you asked for clarification or perhaps read my words more closely, not adding to them as I had said "agree with these words " those words being what I quoted Booker T as saying, not the entire layout of what the Atlanta Compromise entails, you'd see that it would be a hell yes, astutely observed, founded on empirical evidence conclusion.

Now before you continue with your rabid renunciation of the ridiculous, do you perhaps have more you'd like to contribute other than adjectives and assumptions based on arguments in which you are the author?
Click to expand...

I still can not figure out why black conservatives such as yourself think it is OK to look down on a person because of their color.
 
66gardeners said:
I still can not figure out why black conservatives such as yourself think it is OK to look down on a person because of their color.
Click to expand...

????

:lamo

I'm neither black nor conservative (at least not by the RNC of today)

and to quash any future assumptions wrongly made about me, i'm neither racist, nor from the south, unless South side of Chicago(originally) can be included. I would also offer that I live, purposefully in one of if not the most diverse zip code in the nation, over 70 nationalities, 100 languages encompass the resident's demographics of where I choose to live.

I don't look down, nor do I look up to anyone.

The purpose of my post was to present a very true, albeit uncomfortable fact. That people of all stripes seek out their own. With all the diversity of my neighborhood, Latinos congregate toward other Latinos, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, whites with whites, this being further broken down by ethnicity, arabs with arabs so on and so forth. They are most comfortable with their own people and really don't want any meaningful intermingling. There are always outliers but the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of my statement.

People don't want to admit this to themselves but it is true. So much so that I've been falsely accused and attacked for even having the audacity to bring it up.
 
What is the US Democratic party's moral justification for their push to implement racist and sexist policies against "white males"?
 
Viktyr Gehrig said:
The man is a contemptible fool. It is fortunate that free speech allows such witless buffoons to out themselves before they are granted any significant power.
Click to expand...

I do believe CPAC is private so it is not covered under freedom of speech. They probably should have put the guy in a broom closet somewhere.
 
Muhammed said:
What is the US Democratic party's moral justification for their push to implement racist and sexist policies against "white males"?
Click to expand...
How are white males victims again? Get off the victimhood plantation.
 
Muhammed said:
What is the US Democratic party's moral justification for their push to implement racist and sexist policies against "white males"?
Click to expand...

Can you give an example or should I just guess as to what you're talking about. Because I can guess pretty good!

Muhammed, "white men can't jump" isn't an actual law.
 
Deuce said:
Only if you look at it in a vacuum.

Affirmative action is an attempt to balance out the racism and sexism that is inherent to the employment process.
Click to expand...
Your apologetics notwithstanding,"affirmative action" is institutionalized racism & sexism by every sense of the term.

Are you pro-racism and pro-sexism?
 
Last edited:
Muhammed said:
Your apologetics notwithstanding,"affirmative action" is institutionalized racism & sexism by every sense of the term.

Are you pro-racism and pro-sexism?
Click to expand...

You're the one suggesting we just allow women and minorities to be systematically discriminated against, so you tell me.
 
Muhammed said:
'nuff said. It's obviously a sexist and racist policy.
Click to expand...

I love when things are snipped and taken out of context. It's just amusing. The next sentence of the quote was "Affirmative actions include training programs, outreach efforts, and other positive steps." The point of affirmative action was never to disallow qualified white applicants, but instead to ensure minorities the same opportunities as white applicants.

There will always be a portion of the white electorate who are upset by this, because it obviously limits some opportunity for white applicants. However, it's disingenuous to portray affirmitive actions inititives as reverse racism, in which white applicants are treated worse then minorities. That's not at all the picture that gets painted when you look at labor statistics.

The employment population statistic for whites is at 59.4% for 2011. Blacks is at 51.7%. Additionally, 34% of employed Black women and 25%of employed Hispanic women worked in management positions. The most striking information I found, was when you look at unemployment, divided by race.

Among the major race and ethnicity groups, the jobless rates in 2011 for Black adult men and women (age 20 and older) were 16.7 and 13.2 percent, respectively. The unemployment rate for Hispanic adult men was 10.3 percent, and the rate for Hispanic adult women was 11.1 percent. In comparison, the unemployment rate for White adult men was 7.7 percent, and the rate for White adult women was 7.0 percent. The jobless rates for Asian adult men and women were 6.4 and 7.0 percent, respectively.
Click to expand...
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsrace2011.pdf

If these affirmative actions laws are so sexist and racist, why are twice as many black men and women unemployed, compared to white men and women?
 
Haha! Honestly I chuckled when I saw this. Mr Terry's comments during a breakout session labeled (can't remember exactly) "Are you tired of being called racist when you know you're not?". It's basically an SNL parody in real life. It's remarkable. Thank you CPAC for another memorable event!
 
Random audience member says something stupid and gets laughed at. Clearly, all republicans are racist.
 
66gardeners said:
At a panel disussion on race at CPAC, Scott Terry, 30, rose from his seat to question the discussion leader, K. Carl Smith, from the Frederick Douglass Republicans, over the role of race in the GOP. Terry said the growth of diversity in the party and outreach to black conservatives has been "at the expense of young, white, Southern males like myself." "I think my demographic is being systematically disenfranchised," Terry said.
Click to expand...

It's pretty sad that some view inclusiveness as a zero-sum game. Inclusiveness is not only a prerequisite for any society to be stable, it is also mutually beneficial. A society that can more fully harness the talents and abilities of all of its people does better than one that relies on only a slice of its population.
 
ChezC3 said:
????

:lamo

I'm neither black nor conservative (at least not by the RNC of today)

and to quash any future assumptions wrongly made about me, i'm neither racist, nor from the south, unless South side of Chicago(originally) can be included. I would also offer that I live, purposefully in one of if not the most diverse zip code in the nation, over 70 nationalities, 100 languages encompass the resident's demographics of where I choose to live.

I don't look down, nor do I look up to anyone.

The purpose of my post was to present a very true, albeit uncomfortable fact. That people of all stripes seek out their own. With all the diversity of my neighborhood, Latinos congregate toward other Latinos, blacks with blacks, asians with asians, whites with whites, this being further broken down by ethnicity, arabs with arabs so on and so forth. They are most comfortable with their own people and really don't want any meaningful intermingling. There are always outliers but the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of my statement.

People don't want to admit this to themselves but it is true. So much so that I've been falsely accused and attacked for even having the audacity to bring it up.
Click to expand...

It's good to see a rational post on the sort of thread where the shrieking loons seem to go insane with emotion and ignorant self-righteousness.

I agree that the various classifications seek out their own. When the dust settles in the United States, we will again have neighborhoods divided along ethnic lines. The dirty little secret is that white Liberals seek out their own just as quickly as good old Southern boys.

At the present time, it's very profitable for white Liberals to pretend that they are champions of the less populous races, but they do their pretending from white enclaves.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to be around your own, that has been the preference since the beginning of time and always will be, particularly now with the huge 1st world and 3rd world cultural differences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom