• 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!

"NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born " This is so sad

opendebate said:
First of all you can't legitimately compare those organizations without looking like a spokesperson for the KKK so unless you have a white sheet hanging in your closet you might want to nip that one in the bud.
Click to expand...

Screw that noise - that's a disqualification tactic that you're trying to use in order to save yourself from admitting you're wrong. It's a pretty pathetic tactic too, I might add.

The point in play here is a uniform application of the principle that you're advocating.
 
Moot said:
Conservatives feel threatened when minorities try to organize themselves or try to speak with one voice.
Click to expand...

They do? How about that. I did not know this. You must be a conservative who does know this because you are reporting your first hand experience. Right?

It's odd though, I'm a conservative, like you, but I don't feel that way and have never heard any other conservatives express that viewpoint, but then again, conservatism is a broad tent and I shouldn't be surprised that there are people like you who do feel as you do. Thanks for sharing your personal feelings.
 
RiverDad said:
The asked the voters if the race of the candidate was the primary reason that they voted for the candidate of their choice. More Obama voters voted for Obama BECAUSE he was black than voted for McCain because he was white. Judging a person, not as an individual, but as a racial symbol of some kind is a racist act. It dehumanizes people.
Click to expand...

It's even more racist to vote for McCain because Obama is black or born in Kenya or a Muslim. Dehumanizing people is what conservatives do best.
 
RiverDad said:
Screw that noise - that's a disqualification tactic that you're trying to use in order to save yourself from admitting you're wrong. It's a pretty pathetic tactic too, I might add.

The point in play here is a uniform application of the principle that you're advocating.
Click to expand...

Now who's panties are in a bunch? hmmmmmm If you don't want to be associated with that group then don't make such ridiculous comparisons that only serve to legitimize a hate based organization that has killed and tortured innocent people for years based on nothing other then the color of their skin. Find an organization that works to promote policies that serve the needs of it's members to use instead of one with a wholly different mission.

I am not applying YOUR uniform application because you tried twisting my words and we got derailed.
 
RiverDad said:
Either definition applies. Think about it.

You can be a racist for having a prejudice based on race WITHOUT that prejudice being based on the belief spelled out in definition #1.



Sure it is, when it gets to specifics. If they have an airy goal - all blacks, and all people for that matter, should be free to strive to their highest potential - then that's not racist. It becomes racist when they translate that goal into policies specifics which mandate that less qualified blacks be admitted in place of more qualified whites, or that a small minority owned business be granted government contracts even if other businesses submit more favorable bids. Now we're talking zero-sum choices - what one party gets, the other party is denied.
Click to expand...

1. In that case, it's not prejudice - wanting to improve yourself and improve your access to a better life does not explicitly or implicitly require the detrimental treatment of others.

2. Since when does the NAACP mandate anything? Since when does the NAACP govern college/university admissions? Since when does the NAACP grant government contracts? You may be indicating that colleges, universities, government etc. are racially prejudice in application of their policies, but that doesn't mean the NAACP is. The NAACP pushes for better access for black people to these mostly or partially government funded services. In many cases, your Supreme Court has ruled that such policies are not racially discriminatory because they, in effect, counterbalance racial discrimination that came before them.

Rather than claim the NAACP is bad or racist, maybe your argument is against those who try to balance out past prejudice with racial bias today. I'm sure the NAACP would tell you that every white young man/woman, every asian young man/woman, etc. who wants to go to university/college should have the opportunity to go - expand access for all - stop pricing education out of the hands of the poor, who are mostly minorities, and perpetuating a cycle of poverty - but their focus is on improving the lot of black people, period.
 
Moot said:
It's even more racist to vote for McCain because Obama is black or born in Kenya or a Muslim. Dehumanizing people is what conservatives do best.
Click to expand...

That's like debating who is worse, a national socialist or a socialist. Once you've crossed the Rubicon, then it doesn't matter.

If someone is voting for Obama because he's black, then that voter has crossed the racist Rubicon. Reasons don't matter so much anymore.
 
opendebate said:
If you don't want to be associated with that group then don't make such ridiculous comparisons.
Click to expand...

It's kind of weak tea to simply assert that the comparison is ridiculous, why not instead explain why the principle doesn't apply in this case.

We don't seem to be in disagreement on the issue of the KKK being a racist group. What we're in disagreement about is whether the NAACP is also a racist group. To declare the NAACP as a racist group doesn't mean that they have to be the equal of the KKK in their tactics. All we require is that they advance policies which are racist - policies which benefit black people at the expense of other people(s). Are you disagreeing with this? Isn't that how we got here? If the NAACP is not racist for advancing policies which promote the interests of black people then shouldn't the KKK also be deemed not racist for their policies which promote the interests of white people?
 
rcart76 said:
Until conservatives start getting off their high horse and actually go to the inner city and start a dialogue with the black community instead of just talking down at us, you will never get us to take you serious.


Criticizing a group from a distance is not going to win anyone over.
Click to expand...

I would say Black elected conservatives would be the key to that....that is if they weren't automatically dismissed as uncle Toms by the very same black community that has been electing Democrats for 60 years and still live in poverty.
 
CanadaJohn said:
2. Since when does the NAACP mandate anything? Since when does the NAACP govern college/university admissions?
Click to expand...

So advocacy without the power to implement policy safeguards an organization from being declared racist. Is that a fair summation of your point? If so, what power does the KKK have to implement the policies which they favor?

Since when does the NAACP grant government contracts? You may be indicating that colleges, universities, government etc. are racially prejudice in application of their policies, but that doesn't mean the NAACP is.
Click to expand...

The NAACP lobbies politicians, they sue in court to advance their policy goals, they lend their voice in court to work against Affirmative Action reform laws, so they are actively working to influence laws and government in support of their brand of racism. You're saying that this doesn't count as racism so long as they don't have the authority to implement on their own.

The NAACP pushes for better access for black people to these mostly or partially government funded services. In many cases, your Supreme Court has ruled that such policies are not racially discriminatory because they, in effect, counterbalance racial discrimination that came before them.
Click to expand...

You're wrong on this, but let's pretend that you're correct. A court can make a declaration but that declaration doesn't take precedence over reality. A court can say it's not discrimination to displace a qualified white applicant for admission to university in favor of a lesser qualified black candidate, but the reality is that a qualified white applicant is denied admission and a lesser qualified black candidate is admitted in his place. That's plain old, simple to see, simple to understand, discrimination. The Court saying otherwise is just a legalistic hair splitting, and what it is not is a definition of reality.
 
RiverDad said:
They do? How about that. I did not know this. You must be a conservative who does know this because you are reporting your first hand experience. Right?
Click to expand...
Well, if 'actions speak louder than words' then I guess I am right.

It's odd though, I'm a conservative, like you, but I don't feel that way and have never heard any other conservatives express that viewpoint, but then again, conservatism is a broad tent and I shouldn't be surprised that there are people like you who do feel as you do. Thanks for sharing your personal feelings.
Click to expand...
Thats true, you don't represent or speak for all conservatives.

Keeping minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them is as old the hills. Getting them to annilate each other to keep their population down, even better. Right?
 
Moot said:
Keeping minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them is as old the hills. Getting them to annilate each other to keep their population down, even better. Right?
Click to expand...

This is age-old political strategy. Divide and conquer. This stuff works. Look at the liberal strategy of shoving multiculturalism down our throats. They've even come up with the insane slogan of "Diversity is our strength" and gotten people to buy into that hokum. So no disagreement from me that this is a well known and effective strategy.

What I'm in the dark about is how conservatives are employing this principle to keep "minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them." I agree with you that this would be an effective way of achieving that goal, but how, exactly, are they doing this?
 
RiverDad said:
That's like debating who is worse, a national socialist or a socialist. Once you've crossed the Rubicon, then it doesn't matter.
Click to expand...
...or a Bircher vs a tea partier vs libertarian vs conservative. Honestly, I can't tell the difference.

If someone is voting for Obama because he's black, then that voter has crossed the racist Rubicon. Reasons don't matter so much anymore.
Click to expand...
You forgot one very important variable, the voters were also black. Ergo, your reasoning is flawed. Otherwise by your logic, then anyone who is white and voted for a white candidate is a racist, too. Now here's the kicker, blacks overwhelmingly voted democrat long before Obama ran for office and almost all the candidates were white. Meh, so where's your racism now, eh?
 
Moot said:
You forgot one very important variable, the voters were also black. Ergo, your reasoning is flawed. Otherwise by your logic, then anyone who is white and voted for a white candidate is a racist, too. Now here's the kicker, blacks overwhelmingly voted democrat long before Obama ran for office and almost all the candidates were white. Meh, so where's your racism now, eh?
Click to expand...

It's still there because your explanation doesn't apply. The poll question asked if race of the candidate was the primary reason the voters were voting for the candidate. So a black voter voting for Obama because they liked his position on the Iraq War doesn't count, just like a white voter voting for McCain because they liked his position on capital gains taxes also wouldn't count. Only those voters who voted for McCain because he was white and those voters who voted for Obama because he was black, and this was the primary reason that they cast their vote, are counted.

I work with a lot of white liberals and you should have seen them crowing about how they were so damn proud of themselves for voting for a black man. Those are the racists we're talking about here, not black voters who voted for Obama because they always vote Democratic straight down the ticket.
 
RiverDad said:
This is age-old political strategy. Divide and conquer. This stuff works. Look at the liberal strategy of shoving multiculturalism down our throats. They've even come up with the insane slogan of "Diversity is our strength" and gotten people to buy into that hokum. So no disagreement from me that this is a well known and effective strategy.

What I'm in the dark about is how conservatives are employing this principle to keep "minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them." I agree with you that this would be an effective way of achieving that goal, but how, exactly, are they doing this?
Click to expand...

I think it is time people stopped finding ways to divide and start uniting.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
I think it is time people stopped finding ways to divide and start uniting.
Click to expand...

Sure, that would be very good for society, but it would be terrible for the Democrats. Can you see liberals abandoning multiculturalism, the ultimate in Divide and Conquer strategies, and forcing English-Only policies, shaming people for speaking foreign languages in public, and so on.

Assimilation is a very worthy goal, but the tactics needed to force people to comply are often not pretty.

So I'm kind of at a loss as to what specific policies you have in mind.
 
RiverDad said:
This is age-old political strategy. Divide and conquer. This stuff works. Look at the liberal strategy of shoving multiculturalism down our throats. They've even come up with the insane slogan of "Diversity is our strength" and gotten people to buy into that hokum. So no disagreement from me that this is a well known and effective strategy.
Click to expand...
The Great American Experiment. I wouldn't mind seeing it succeed...at least as long as the Roman Empire did.

What I'm in the dark about is how conservatives are employing this principle to keep "minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them." I agree with you that this would be an effective way of achieving that goal, but how, exactly, are they doing this?
Click to expand...
The Southern Strategy.
 
Moot said:
The Southern Strategy.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but while that appears to be a self-evident answer to you, it leaves me in the dark with respect to your claim of "keeping minorities or any ethnic group in a state of poverty and chaos in order to control them."

HOW does the Southern Strategy DO that?

Moot said:
The Great American Experiment. I wouldn't mind seeing it succeed...at least as long as the Roman Empire did.
Click to expand...

We're doomed to failure, I fear. Look about the world and point out ANY multicultural societies which are prospering over the long term. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the USSR, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, South Africa, etc. Where are these successful multicultural societies?
 
I think what this thread demonstrates is that some right wing people will selectively look at which party endorsed what and when while ignoring the last 50 years of racial relations in the US. One poster, presumably from Stormfront, keeps trying to shove this message into the thread: The Democrats are racist because of what they did in the 1950s and before. Well, alright. I'll bite and ask this question: What happened to all of those Southern Democrats? Well, if we are to follow many sources: They became Republicans. Many prominent Republicans even admitted to this fact:

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
Click to expand...

So, long story short, as the Democrats started making gains with black voters, Republicans started exploiting racial tension in order to gain the silent (white) majority's vote. In essence, the opponents of racism have now become benefactors of it. They'll scream foul at the claim that they, as a party, would purposely engage in divide and conquer tactics to gain support. Except of course:

CNN.com - Bush calls for ban on same-sex marriages - Feb. 25, 2004

President Bush endorsed a constitutional amendment Tuesday that would restrict marriage to two people of the opposite sex but leave open the possibility that states could allow civil unions.
Click to expand...

So how did a party that was basically known for this in the South:

nast75.jpg


Become the leading party? Did Northern Liberals (the biggest supporters of ending slavery) suddenly move South while Southern Democrats moved up North? Nope. Republicans, unable to stop their losses in the North, turned to the South. The same region that supported slavery, Jim Crowe and segregation now supports ending welfare programs (that admittedly benefit blacks and hispanics far more).
 
votemout said:
NYC: More Black Babies Killed by Abortion Than Born | CNS News

(CNSNews.com) – In 2012, there were more black babies killed by abortion (31,328) in New York City than were born there (24,758), and the black children killed comprised 42.4% of the total number of abortions in the Big Apple, according to a report by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene.

The report is entitled, Summary of Vital Statistics 2012 The City of New York, Pregnancy Outcomes, and was prepared by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Office of Vital Statistics. (See Pregnancy Outcomes NYC Health 2012.pdf)

I bet the demonocratic party is so happy their agenda is working.
I for one think its so sad:boohoo:
Click to expand...

Margaret Sanger would be proud as hell that her Negro Project is succeeding.
 
RiverDad said:
So advocacy without the power to implement policy safeguards an organization from being declared racist. Is that a fair summation of your point? If so, what power does the KKK have to implement the policies which they favor?



The NAACP lobbies politicians, they sue in court to advance their policy goals, they lend their voice in court to work against Affirmative Action reform laws, so they are actively working to influence laws and government in support of their brand of racism. You're saying that this doesn't count as racism so long as they don't have the authority to implement on their own.



You're wrong on this, but let's pretend that you're correct. A court can make a declaration but that declaration doesn't take precedence over reality. A court can say it's not discrimination to displace a qualified white applicant for admission to university in favor of a lesser qualified black candidate, but the reality is that a qualified white applicant is denied admission and a lesser qualified black candidate is admitted in his place. That's plain old, simple to see, simple to understand, discrimination. The Court saying otherwise is just a legalistic hair splitting, and what it is not is a definition of reality.
Click to expand...

Your entire argument is worthless when you attempt to equate the KKK with the NAACP - suggestions of such equivalency is either incredibly dishonest or incredibly ignorant. I won't stoop into that gutter and argue against it since that will serve no purpose.

Secondly, and for the last time, I'll point out that advocacy for one group of people is not, by definition, advocating against any or all other groups. The NAACP advocates for, not against. Racism requires both a belief that one is different from and better than others based on race. If anything, the NAACP believes that black people are no different from and are just as good as all others. Advocating for equality is hardly racism.

Thirdly, your description of "affirmative action" as it relates to university admissions is actually racist. You claim that white applicants are more qualified for admission than black applicants that win placement - as I understand it, the policies require that all applicants be qualified for admission but that additional consideration is given to bringing into line the demographics of the student body with the demographics of the community it serves. It encourages minorities to apply for admission on the basis that they will be treated equally and fairly where in the past they may have been prejudicially handled.

Finally, I have to say, personally, as a conservative, I encourage any attempts to lift the socially and economically disadvantaged in order to help them become responsible, contributing members of society. I'd much rather give disadvantaged people a "hand up, rather than a hand out". Education is the number one way in which socially and economically disadvantaged people can improve their situation. Do you also object to university admissions policies that provide grants and scholarships to students who can't afford tuition? Clearly, if student one has to pay the full shot and student two gets a free or partially free ride, student one isn't receiving a benefit student two gets. In your view, student one is being discriminated against - in my view, the school is levelling the playing field for some deserving students who would otherwise miss out.
 
RiverDad said:
Embargo, travel restrictions, diplomatic isolation.
Click to expand...

1) How does that differ from the Democrats?

2) How has that worked out so far? Think of it this way: USSR - way bigger than Cuba by a long shot, we had diplomatic relations, collapsed. Cuba, N. Korea, Iran - no relations, look who's still in power.
 
RiverDad said:
We're doomed to failure, I fear. Look about the world and point out ANY multicultural societies which are prospering over the long term. Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Belgium, Czechoslovakia, the USSR, the Ottoman Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, South Africa, etc. Where are these successful multicultural societies?
Click to expand...

Belgium's doing quite well actually. The Russian Federation is still one of the most ethnically diverse states in the world and with few exceptions, without violence. The Czechs and Slovaks didn't descend into violence between each other (except on the hockey rink).

On the other hand, one of the major nails in Yugoslavia's coffin was the rise of a nationalist Serb government that wanted to create an empire and get rid of everybody that wasn't a Serb. Which is exactly what you're talking about for us.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom