Comments on: Hilarious

By: Gene Touchet

Gene Touchet — Tue, 01 Aug 2006 23:47:29 +0000

Admire your determination. Keep up the very good work.

Make ‘em sweat.

By: douggie g.

douggie g. — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 16:42:52 +0000

Pete,

My omission of that part of the definition of racism was a sin of omission, but I don’t see how that bolsters your beliefs. Let’s take a look at that…

“The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability.”

In no way, under the wording or intent of the laws of affirmative action, is it inherently saying that blacks are better in character or ability. I’d be interested to see evidence where it does. That certainly wasn’t brought up in the Michigan law school cases.

As I have said before, its purpose is to overcome institutional racism that did exist for centuries, where blacks were denied many things simply because whites thought they were better than blacks in character and ability and thought that they were superior to blacks. If anything, AA laws confirm the belief that no race is superior in character or ability, but individuals may be, so to discriminate solely upon the color of one’s skin is wrong. So in order to tip the seesaw, we need to put some weight on the other side. Is it perfect? Hell no. But it beats what had been going on.

So I don’t see, based on history, how leaving that out bolsters your case.

By: douggie g.

douggie g. — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:25:48 +0000

Rush’s is a sin of omission. He has always railed on drug use and promoted the “War on Drugs” without noting that the penalties inherently favor those drug users who are weathier.

Ollie was actually convited of obstruction and purgury, trhough it was later overturned on a technicality, and he has never denied using the funds from the sale of weapons to Iran (then, as now, an enemy to freedom) to help the contras in Central America, even though there was a law against that.

As for the lynchings and whipping, I’ll answer the question with a question. Do you think that from the end of the Civil war to about 1960 there was a fundamental shift in how America generally viewed and treated blacks? The whippings were not analogous to reprimanding a child, that’s apples and oranges. If you answer yes to that question, then I can see why you think affirmative action is wrong, but I’d also say that you have no understanding of race history in America.

The fact is the playing field titled heavily in favor of whites for 250 years thanks to institutionalized discrimination, and affirmitive action tries to level that out

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:20:21 +0000

Douggie
I find it interesting that you left out this part of the definition of racism. “The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability.” Key word being ability.

By: Pete

Pete — Fri, 28 Jul 2006 14:06:14 +0000

douggie
I dont resort to name calling or besmirching someone’s family. Nothing is gained from it and it makes one look like an ass. I accept the beer, I’ll buy the shots. Please tell me when and how Rush has ignored white-collar cocaine use. I would also like to know what Ollie was convicted of. Do you really think the whippings and lynchings of 200 years ago has an effect on people today? My father has tanned my ass as a child and I didnt go through life needing special treatment.