[American troops shoot Iraqi child]

Okay, this is moronic. I'm tired of watching this endless debate continue.

 

Duo: Your argument is fatally flawed. You argue because we don't execute minors it would not have been right to kill him in that instance. Is that correct?

 

If so, your argument about "He shouldn't get killed because we don't have the death penalty for minors" is completely wrong because this doesn't deal with a trial and sentencing, this deals with apprehension. If a cop has a gun pointed at them, child or no, if he feels that his life is in danger or that people around him are in danger they are allowed to use whatever force necessary to defuse the situation. The same goes for soldiers: Whether or not he realizes the consequences behind it, the child was pointing a rapid fire assault weapon at soldiers in the US Armed Forces. The soldier felt that the child, regardless of his level of understanding, could cause considerable harm to his fellow soldiers and most likely any civilians in the area. The action of killing the child, no matter his motive or level of understand, because he posed a rather large threat to the soldier, his squadmates, and civilians in the area, is completely justifiable even if it is a bit tragic. Your constant assertions of "How do we know he could aim?" make no sense because nothing in the article suggests that he couldn't. He came out and pointed the gun at the soldiers; technically, that would qualify as aiming. It wouldn't matter anyways, because in a combat situation soldiers ALWAYS treat guns as being loaded and their owners as people who know how to use them, regardless of age. Understanding doesn't matter when he's still a threat.

 

If not, then your current argument makes absolutely no sense. The people against you are arguing that the soldier (Or anyone else in the same situation) would be justified in their actions. If you agree with that, then what the fuck do you keep going on about? He's not getting a trial or being sentenced to death; that wasn't even remotely suggested here. Hell, no one said he ever deserved to die. Hell, Anglesault (In the post before your first) commended the guy on his restraint because if he had seen someone point a gun at him, regardless of their age he would have taken them down. That's not a sentence to death, that's saying "He was a bit cooler under fire than I would ever be". Hell, I don't even know why you posted that flame because NO ONE WAS DOING WHAT YOU WERE BASHING!

 

In conclusion, I reccommend stopping before you look stupider than cartman.

[American troops shoot Iraqi child]

This is assuming the kid knows how to aim.

Just as a clarifacation, the kid was pointing the rifle at the soldiers.

 

And just to look at your ORIGINAL argument:

 

Meanwhile, saying you "would have shot him somewhere else/killed him/etc." is bullshit. The kid's SEVEN, dickheads. If a seven-year-old murdered someone in America, he'd get psychological help and a stay in a juvenile facility, not a death sentance. Why should an Iraqi kid get any different?

 

God. Think before you type, people.

 

Yes, if he were APPREHENDED, moron. If he shot the cop and the cop's partner shot and killed the child, he's totally justified in his actions. The child was not under control and was still a threat. Whether or not he knows what he is doing is inconsequential because his actions are directly endangering the lives of both soldiers on duty and civilians around him.

 

On Recoil: Recoil doesn't mean a thing if you can still get the first shot off, and having an AK-47 blazing wildly in every direction because of said recoil is still dangerous nonetheless. To say that he couldn't kill the soldiers because of recoil is just plain stupid.

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

Problem is, how do you tell a civilian from a guerilla? They engage in a target, they shoot 10 people dead. They are all in civilian clothing. Who is who is who?

If you shoot and kill someone you didn't intend to, it's an accidental shooting. How hard is that?

Because civilians can still be shot if you meant to shoot them as well. Hell, I'll bet that a lot of the people who get shot and killed were not just bystanders, but either guerillas or people mistaken for guerillas. What about richochets and other things? Maybe you didn't see a guy get killed, but now he's dead. Is he a guerilla or a civilian? The matter of civilian casualties is not as black and white as you seem to make it.

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

Problem is, how do you tell a civilian from a guerilla? They engage in a target, they shoot 10 people dead. They are all in civilian clothing. Who is who is who? And it's not as though all guerillas carry rifles: You can have people with just a molotov cocktail, an RPG that they toss after they fired it, and other makeshift explosive devices. This isn't "Shoot first, ask questions later", this is "Get shot at first, return fire, 'Uh, who is who, sir?', 'Don't rightly know...'"

 

And not to call the Sunnis biased or anything, but... well, I think you know what i mean there.

[Democratic Debate: Part 800]

Is Thunderdome a wrestling gimmick I'm not aware of or something?

Mad Max, dude. TWO MEN ENTER! ONE MAN LEAVE!

 

Personally, we should just start doing gladitorial bouts for the Presidency. It'd be so much more entertaining.

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

Wildbomb: I think there would be a real question of "What is bias?" because as you showed in your poll, people have VERY different opinions about what the media is biased towards. What doesn't seemed biased towards you may seemed biased towards me. Hell, that would make the FCC a massively powerful politcal tool because it could really threaten channels to be "More patriotic!" or "Be more critical of *Insert Party* so you can look fair!". It's all opinion and it varies so much that you'd have non-stop cases calling just every national news station either a "Liberal Propaganda Center" or a "Right-wing Conspiracy Tool". The two books you mentioned could easily present enough evidence to just about every news agency in big trouble, and it will all depend on the politics of the FCC when it comes down to who is gonna get it and who won't.

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

What I don't get is the hatred of Haliburton --- it's not like people are naming MORE capable companies of doing what they're doing in Iraq.

                              -=Mike

Schlumberger and Bechtel.

So you are more qualified to choose a reconstruction company than the US Military, eh?

 

*Claps*

 

Haliburton did this job for them in the first Gulf War. Isn't it kind of logically for them to turn back to them to do the same job? And explain to me what control Dick Cheney had in this, or why Haliburton is never allowed to have a government contract again, because I think I missed this.

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

I think we argee for the most part. I'd prefer the UN to foot some of the bill and give us some manpower, but they don't seem to want to give any of the latter unless they get full control, which I'm leery of because they haven't had a successful operation in God only knows how long. Again, help is nice, but they should want to help; We need not beg from them for the small amount they are likely to give.

 

UN wouldn't be looked upon as an occupying force? Why not? They look exactly the same and would be doing the exact same things, and they would still be outsiders. They'd still be look upon as an 'occupying force' simply because they are there. I don't see anything that would really suggest that.

 

I'll quote this one part because I think it needs attention:

 

Because it won't be too long before a new generation is taught by their parents that life was good until the Americans came in and started squatting on their land.

 

Really, was it that much better? I think that's a bit of an exaggeration there...

 

But seriously, putting a UN face on it does nothing. We would still do the same things, and if we didn't it would probably take a turn for a less aggressive stance against taking on this current resistance, which is not something that should be done. You know there are British, Italian, Polish, and other countries there as well. I mean, a lot of what's already there is probably what would have comprised of a UN police force because Russia, France, and Germany aren't pledging troops any time soon. A lot of the manpower would still be coming from the US and the 'being occupied' mentality that some have right now would still be there.

 

No, because he's a loyalist. I doubt there's an "average" loyalist though. There is your average Iraqi who sees a US machine gun fill a car with bullets or someone who's neighbor's house was raided the night before last with the US "shoot first, then ask questions, then file answers away to be investigated some other time, then leave without bothering to look for innocent deaths" policy.

 

Um, what? Excuse me? Let's stop shovelling bullshit here. When did we "Shoot first, file blah blah blah" this? We've been very restrained in our actions and we've tried to keep civilian casualties to a minium in a conflict where that hinders us a bunch. That's just more "The US Army has the Rambo Mentality" bullshit that Mummering Beast was spouting months ago.

 

Hell, what would the UN do differently that would be so much more effective? The "Stay there until resistance is met, then pull the hell out" gameplan? Explain to me what the UN plan of attack would be, and then tell me why this would be so much more effective.

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

So you basically made your witty little first post irrelevant by posting your actual plan. Odd.

Well, no. I posted a plan to try and make the country able to defend itself to any outside threat and give them the oppertunity to make it stable, not use it as a pet experiment in industrializing the middle east at the expense of our time, our money, and our military.

And we are doing that now? How so? Seriously, you are making up shit now. Have I ever said I wanted to industrialize the Middle East? No. I said that having new industries being able to go over there now wouldn't be bad. But hey, whatever. If you want to believe that we are trying to turn it into a capitalistic dream-world and that we think it will solve all their problems, so be it. I just don't remember it ever being discussed.

 

Well, part of the whole picture you have to come to grips with is that it will never be theocratic-free. At least, not in our lifetimes. That region is most stubborn to change, and religion is going to unfortunately always have a role, even if a minor one. My guess is that the first sign of a corruption in the Iraqi government will be that the religious representation is not equal to the people. Already the various sects of Muslims are arguing over who should get how much representation.

 

I never said it can be religion free. Religion is so interconnected with our morals that no political machine can be completely free of religion. We can, though, try and keep out the bigger stuff such as intolerance and most forms of favoritism. Please, don't put words into my mouth so you can sound better.

 

And please explain to me how the UN will be better at keeping the major religious influences out of the government.

 

Iraq's former UN presence was simply about keeping up appearances. It was one guy just spouting off the dictatorship's propaganda and it was pretty obvious that UN visits were considered an inconvenience to Saddam. Now, if the UN is involved in building the government, that gives them inroads with the new government.You either trust others to help do it right or decide to do it all yourself, and I don't like the idea of another country hanging on our back like a heroin monkey, taking our resources while not really liking us anyway.

 

And you don't think this one will be the same as well? The UN hasn't done anything to impress me, so please state where it suddenly has the ability to do things like keep a close eye on a rebuilding nation when all they've done in the past is done "aethestic appearances? Seriously, you put your faith in something that hasn't done anything worthwhile in God only knows how long.

 

We are taking their resources?! OMG NO WAR FOR OIL!!!E$&*(#$*(!@)#&

 

Christ, that's so played. Again, I don't see how you can't trust the American Government to do what is right here, yet you'll allow a international body with a horrid track record come in and (With the most honest intentions, because UN is all about that) magically make everything better. I'm not saying the UN shouldn't help, but it should be just that: Help. They didn't want to commit to the action, so they shouldn't get full control. Besides, it isn't like this is just the US. You have the whole Coalition of the Willing there as well. But hey, if you really want Germany and France and Russia to come along and not pledge any troops, okay.

 

But I was under the impression that was supposed to be the work of Saddam loyalists?

 

Yes. But why would the normal Iraq citizen take any better to someone from France or Bolivia rather than someone from the US? Will your average loyalist stop attacking when he sees a UN soldier instead of a US soldier? Explain the advantage of having a UN military force here, because "Less troops, less resolve" doesn't seem like a pro in this situation.

 

I suppose what I'm saying here is explain to me why the UN should take over this operation. How have they proven to us that they can do a better job here with less manpower and a less-than-watchful eye?

 

For the most part, they're going to have to grow their own economy. Importing a bunch of American businesses and culture (which is what I was talking about when I mentioned that they're not going to get overjoyed at their local McDonalds and decide we're good guys after all) is going to create more violence.

 

When I say "Opening up to new industries", I'm not talking about bulldozing a mosque and putting up a Walmart. I'm talking a slow and natural progression of outside influences to come in. I don't see how everyone is going to be suddenly driven to rage when they see a McDonald's pop up. That's just me, though.

 

Iraq is actually pretty far along for a Muslim nation. People actually drive cars, women can read, etc. That's a good deal more advanced than, say, Afghanistan. They WILL get there. But they're sensitive to our presence and want us to leave as soon as we possibly can.

 

They are far along, that's obvious. But to say "DON'T ALLOW ANYTHING ELSE TO COME IN!" is not the smartest thing. If you don't let anyone in, you will just make them more inclusionary and xenophobic. Do you want Iraq to have no business connections to the outside world or something?

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

So what should we do? Are we just to resign ourselves to saying "Well, they are ALWAYS going to be a backwards society and there is no hope for the region and just let it be?"

We could rededicate our efforts to getting it working, getting elections running, getting their military operative again, and leaving. Getting the UN involved from the ground floor would at least insure a government that an eye can be kept on, as opposed to the Saddam government style of using smoke and mirrors to try and hide from the UN and commiting heinous acts of brutality behind the scenes.

 

Of course, if you're not willing to trust the UN and believe it's secretly against us, then you're never going to get to that point and you're going to wind up at square one in another dozen years.

 

If the new government's first order of business isn't to adapt themselves into an order that's not ideal to our situation (and trust me, it won't), then yes, we'll have to deal with the fact that this area is far too steeped in religion and history to change in a few years. These people are NOT going to put down their guns and eat a Big Mac and forcing them to through occupation and fear will only make enemies in many years to come.

So you basically made your witty little first post irrelevant by posting your actual plan. Odd.

 

How is the UN going to be that much more effective at rooting out theocratic influences than we are? I mean, you mention their failure with keeping an eye on Saddam when he was in power, why would they do that much better of a job now? Or are you saying that the US Interim government is corrupt and full of smoke and mirrors? It doesn't quite work out, man.

 

Not to say they can't help us, but why would they succeed where we wouldn't? Your first post basically said "Looking at the history of the region, there is nothing we can do to change it". Well, what will the UN, which is just as looked down upon as the US (Remember that UN buildings have been targeted a few times in attacks, so they are obviously not happy to have them in the country either) going to do that's so drastically different than us? Fact is that, while this post is a somewhat feasible plan (I'd like to see the UN involved, but a full pullout would be moronic considering that many countries simply won't pledge the amount of troops that we can put there).

 

We just believe that commercializing Iraq will make everything better? When the fuck did we claim this? And hell, why wouldn't the UN do this? It certainly isn't a total solution, but it wouldn't hurt to open up more modernized service jobs there and put in some high-tech industry. I don't see why the UN wouldn't try to attract business to the area.

 

I agree with some of your points, but your first post was NOT the same as the second.

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

I'd prefer to just plain pull out of Iraq and leave the UN to do the job with an inadequate amount of troops and all the resolve and backbone of the 2002 Democratic Party.

I never suggested that.

 

But I think these visions of a commercialized Iraq with unrevokable freedoms and a government with as little theocratic influence as possible are all a pipe dream to anyone who knows the reality of the situation.

 

 

Iraqis are not going to change their minds because a McDonalds, Wal-Mart, and a Blockbuster were built in their town on our dime.

So what should we do? Are we just to resign ourselves to saying "Well, they are ALWAYS going to be a backwards society and there is no hope for the region and just let it be?" I don't think that the change will come soon, but I believe that the change will eventually come. It has to happen and it will happen. Maybe not in the next five years, or even the next ten, but it will happen and we have to stay there allow it to occur. Do you argue with this or no, because I think we argee on this.

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

In the little book discussion here, I'm suddenly reminded of our Senate Simulation where we threatened a filibuster by holding up Slander and threatening to read the entire book .

[Iraqi Teens Drag Bloodied U.S. Soldiers]

Well, let's just sit and talk about "hearts and minds" and shining beacons of democracy and all of this will go away. Right?

 

 

Right?

 

 

Anyone who's looked at the history of the middle east knows that's bullshit, and this is just more proof.

I'd prefer to just plain pull out of Iraq and leave the UN to do the job with an inadequate amount of troops and all the resolve and backbone of the 2002 Democratic Party. THEN all the problems would go away because we wouldn't have to look at it anymore.

 

Problems aren't there if we pitch them off to other countries who couldn't give a rat's ass... right?

 

Right?

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

The "right of privacy" is not one of the enumerated powers found in the Constitution - it's a legal fiction that the Court has read into the Constitution as being an "implied" power. But it doesn't exist there on its own.

 

The right to have national banks isn't expressed in the Constitution, either. Do you suggest that Congress doesn't have the power to charter a bank?

 

Do you suggest Congress doesn't have the power to charter such things as the FCC, etc.? That wasn't in the constitution, either.

Then again, that's under the implied powers of CONGRESS, Tyler. The right to privacy was created by the Court itself. If we want a right to privacy, make it an amendment and pass it through Congress because the Courts themselves don't have the power to do so themselves: it's a Legislative Branch power, not a Judicial branch power.

[Bush vist to the U.K.]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Secret Service lended some of their man-power to the job.

The British did offer their manpower, and they do their job well if you consider that British heads of state don't get killed that often. But the White House insists on using it's own people here.

Oh no, we are talking about foreign heads of state coming to the US. But I did not know that. Gotta love the Brits .

[Bush vist to the U.K.]

I'm curious, are foreign heads of state allowed to take the same measures the US does in other countries when they visit the US?

I wouldn't be surprised if the Secret Service lended some of their man-power to the job.

[Bush vist to the U.K.]

It is fired from a tank and can kill dozens of people.

 

LMAO, that is a dumbshit reporter for you. Dozens of people? A minigun fires at a max rate of 6,000 rounds per minute. Yeah, I think it can handle dozens. And it was used in Vietnam on boats in the Mekong Delta, and has many other uses, besides being used from a tank.

I've never heard of miniguns being mounted on tanks, though that'd be one thing I'd NEVER want to see as an infantry man. Considering we use these things in areas like Psychological Warfare with "Spookies" and have them nail missiles out of the mid-air to protect our war ships, I'd say they are something fucking frightening even to think about facing.

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

But, hey, just pass more laws that you support the violation of whenever it is convenient for you. I'm sure THAT will be a winning formula in the election.

 

I'm sorry, I didn't realize John McCain was a democrat.

He's less of a Republican than Zell Miller is a Democrat.

-=Mike

I doubt that. McCain votes with his own party more than Zell Miller does.

I'd actually like to see numbers on that.

 

I'm legitimately curious.

-=Mike

I believe that McCain votes Republican (Way back in a Time issue around the time Jim Jeffords was leaving the party) about 75%-73% of the time. Zell, actually, votes 23%-27% of the time (Or thereabouts). I'm pretty sure on this, though I'm sure someone could get me exact tallies.

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

Marbury is judicial review, not federalism. It applies to all levels.

Oh, for a sec I was gonna say that "Their State Constitution had a supremecy clause that overruled all other laws?!"

 

Next time just say "Judicial Review" rather than Marbury, since that's a bit more accurate to how the facts were argued. But yeah, I now agree with you.

[Mass. court turns over gay marriage ban]

Courts have usurped power for years now and it is a very disturbing trend.

                    -=Mike

See: Bush v. Gore 531 U.S. 98 (2000)

Well, considering it is the only nationally elected official the Supreme Court does have some legitimacy to make a decision there.

 

Other than that, I'd have to say I agree with the decision. I honestly don't see a point in not allowing any more.

[White Judge Draws Fire for Costume]

Um, being consider property is a million times worse. Because as soon as these factory workers(US born or not) were considered citzens, they had rights backed by the laws of this land. Slaves had NOTHING! They were treated worse than shit. Scott vs Stanford layed out the law that slavory was allowed because blacks were considered property. And as property have no laws of protection. Thus it made it perfectly legal to kill a slave.  Factory workers dieing, while bad, still had it better. It is a reason why these groups were able to move up the social ladder so fast. As Ripper et al said, they were not black. You seem not to gasp this problem. These groups had it better for this. Name one case in the supreme court where they were basically law bound to be treated like complete and utter shit?

If you've ever read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair, that's very debatable. You have an incredibly Laisse Faire court (As proven in Lochner v. New York, which essentially cut off the power of the Legislature to put on things like health restrictions and hour limits. Also look at Hammer v. Dagenhart, which would strike down a Federal Child Labor law on the grounds that it overstretched Congress' commerce clause powers) which refused to help out the common worker, Union busters, people working ungodly amounts of hours in slaughterhouses where the working conditions are probably more dangerous (With tons of knives, slick surfaces, massive vats of lye that people sometimes fell into, you were easily risking your own lives every day you were in there), housing that was abysmal, police and lawyers that were always on teh side of business, and other such things. One could say that even the climate (They talk about one boy in the factories who came in screaming because his ears were frostbitten, and the foreman simply walked over, cupped his hands over the ears and plucked them off) was against them.

 

Slaves had nothing? So did these people. All they lacked was the name. Oh, and I named the court cases above. You aren't the only people that have been oppressed by a court ruling.

[Character developing survey...]

What is your real name? William Reginald Hearford III.

 

Where do you live? At the moment? A Georgian Colonial in Ferndale, Michigan. I'm actually only a few blocks away from the Detroit Zoo, so I visit it often.

 

What's your marital satatus and do you have kids? Divorced with two daughters, 22 and 19. I never mentioned it in Kay-fabe, though. I think they are still a little embarrassed that their father runs around in tights and tosses people around for a living *Laughs*.

 

Who's your best friend outside of kayfabe? Ejiro and Tom, easily. Over the last year I've gotten to know them better than I probably have any wrestler in my career. I was also quite close to Fugue back when he was still around, and he's probably the wrestler I miss most at the moment.

 

Who's your favourite WWE Wrestler? Currently? Hm. I'd have to say Shawn Michaels at the moment, because he shows that grey foxes like me can still hang with the young blood.

 

Who's you favourite Other wrestler (US Indies or Japan)? Oh boy. I'd have to say A.J. Styles. The boy has tons of talent and I'd like to see him get out of TNA and move on to something bigger.

 

What's your favourite match to watch? Steve Austin vs. Bret Hart, Wrestlemania XIII. Two men who were insanely popular putting on an incredibly emotional, entertaining match. I still love the finish to this day.

 

Who's your favourite Band or singer? Well, I honestly don't have a favorite band. If I really had to choose... I suppose the Who, the Beatles, and Frank Sinatra would be at the top.

 

What's your favourite album? The White Album. A true classic.

 

What's your favourite song? My Way by Frank Sinatra. Again, another real classic.

 

What's your favourite film? I'd have to say that the recent Lord of the Ring films have been absolutely incredible. They'll take my

 

Which sporting teams/franchises do you support? I've always been a big Red Wings and Lions fan, and I'm just getting back into the Pistons; Personally I stopped watching when Chuck Daly and the Bad Boys filtered out for the yearly promising rookie flop that would come along. And I don't think it'd be right for me not to mention Al (The Boston Stranger) getting me to enjoy the Red Sox since I've never really liked baseball.

 

What sports do you play? I golf moderately well, though I've always been an ice-skater. I still have some old goalie pads in my basement somewhere that would put Arturs Irbe to shame.

 

And finally... if you weren't a wrestler what WOULD you be? *Laughs* Well, I'd probably start up a private practice since my license was only revoked in Kayfabe.

[White Judge Draws Fire for Costume]

That’s not what my argument stated at all. I pointed out how long it took and then I pointed out that having white skin HELPED. They had the option to change their names. And a lot of them used that option to incorporate themselves with white Americans. The ones that owned businesses that didn't cater primarily to their own community would change their last names a lot because without doing so could cost them money. When they moved from the ghettos, they would change their names, not only for financial reasons but also for personal safety. To say having the same color skin as the majority of the nation DIDN'T help in incorporating themselves into American society is foolish and naive honestly. The fact is, if you are part of or appear to be part of the 80 percent of the majority of something, you will have an easier time getting adjusted and accepted into the society.

Again, we are talking about a hatred that transcends color here. Did it help? Meh, if you were an admitted Jew or Irishman, you were still going to get tons of shit, black, white, red, blue, whatever. It's just what comes with the ethnicity. And just having the option for an easy way out doesn't mean that they were accepted quicker: If that were the case, the Irish would still be hated and all the Irish would just throw away their heritage, which obviously hasn't happened. They had to suffer hard to get where they are now as accepted are today. I think that the black race, with the progressive society that we have today, should be doing a bit better than they are but that their 'leaders' have lead them to concentrate on the dying racism rather than self-improvement of their own race that they need. Again, the NAACP is a big organization that has swing and resources. Maybe they can legitimize themselves a bit among the community if they actually started concentrating on the community. That's all.

 

You also have to look at the stereotype that was put on Chinese and Asian Americans. You can go back those hundred years and find that they were always assumed to be smart and good with numbers. There is a clear difference between your stereotype being that you aren't smart, but are good for physical labor and a stereotype that you are smart and good with numbers. Which one is going to get you out of poverty faster? Trust me, there are plenty, PLENTY of bad student ass lazy as Asian Americans, but they are met with the presumption of being incredibly smart. They have to prove themselves dumb to people while other minorities have to prove themselves smart.

 

Honestly the Chinese that came over weren't respected as numbers people but as simple laborers for the rails. You could make a case that they had a lot of the stigmas that the black race had to deal with, but they did overcome them eventually. Their stereotype, though, has changed so much and it's weird to see them come from serious oppression and ignomy to where they are today.

 

And yes, stereotypes about all Asians being incredible students is wrong. But statistics sure show that a lot of them are up there in the class rankings. It's not as though they haven't earned that distinction.

 

To claim the black community is worse than it was in the 60's is a laughable bunch of bullshit that was made up by the very same "black leaders" that you don't like. Poverty has not increased. Despite what the news and whatever your sources tell you, the black population has had a steady rise from the poverty line since segregation became illegal. It just appears to not be happening fast enough for those people who ignore the slow rise from poverty that every other minority group had. Don't say that abolition was when the opportunity to rise started all you want, the late 50's early 60's is a more accurate date.

 

Did I say they were worse off than they were in the 60's? Unless someone is using my name without me knowing, I never said that. It's obvious they've improved; that's a fact. I think they could be improving a lot faster if they started to address some of the problems that are affecting their communities, like all the young mothers coming out of the inner-cities, screwing both themselves and their children. The whole "Thug" subculture that isn't doing wonders for your race either could maybe be addressed: It certainly hasn't helped the image of the average black american much. I think that they need to address these so they can move faster and eliminate the current disparity between races.

 

And the biggest problem facing black america isn't racism...no...I never said it was. But it is a big problem on both end of the spectrum(blacks being racist towards whites and vice versa) . The biggest problem facing black Americans is that we are still seen as a whole and not as individuals. That is the true test of equality. There will alway be people that hate you for what you look like, that is part of being human. But the fact of the matter is, if Jesse Jackson gets on screen and talks about racism, the general reaction is "There go black people screaming racism again" while if a white person gets on television and says something stupid its viewed as look at this guy saying something stupid. The equivilant would be me assuming every opinion that Rush Limbaugh has is the opinion of whites in america. Once THAT is out the way and people are judged on their own meriets, then racism in this country won't be dead, but it will cease to matter anymore.

 

That's a much better, concetrated argument than what you put forth before, and I agree with a lot that is there. I wish you had said this earlier rather than now, but this is a really good statement.

 

Honestly (And this is not a problem that can really be fixed), I think that the majority of black americans are seen, through the political spectrum, to support Jesse Jackson and your current black leaders because of their political affliation and how blacks as a whole generally vote. Not that it's right, but one could say similar things about people looking at Republicans and them thinking much like Bush; they might not, but because of their political affliation they are grouped in that way. Your leaders have politicized race in such a way that political affliation and color are almost intertwined: A black democrat is instantly thought of having the pulse of the black community, which may not be the case.

[White Judge Draws Fire for Costume]

Because teen pregnancy is only a problem in the black race?  You know, the EXACT same problems are prevelant in every other race and with basically the same results.  A bad parenting environment is not conducive to good academics.  REALLY?!!??!?!?  But, once again, this has nothing to do with the anything.  Bottomline, it is easier to succeed with the necessary materials than it is not to.  It is easier to succeed on a SAT when the questions were actually presented to you in your education process.  That is far more common of a problem, especially in larger cities, than mommy was young.  It also doesn't help that most of these families are lower income families where the parents much work.  Latchkey kids are more than likely not going to do homework when they get home than a household where there is a stay at home parent.  Once again, these are things that are the effects of class, not race, but it just so happens that the minorities in this country make up a large percent of the lower class.  And black leaders are never the answer anymore.  Why do blacks need leaders?  They are just there to keep the seperation even more defined.

 

I never said that it's only a black problem. I said it's a problem that your leaders have failed to address because they are too busy watching politicans like pitbulls for some freudian slip-up. It's most prevailant in inner-cities and rural areas, and most of the black race tends to be in the inner-city. And yes, class does play a part, but having kids young certainly puts you much further behind and keeps you down there, which is why it needs to be addressed.

 

Why do you need leaders? Indeed, it's debatable. Maybe you just need better, more focused leaders now to lead a community effort to fix these problems. You have an organization like the NAACP at your disposal, why not put it to good use?

 

And what did you disagree with me here on? You seem adamant on disagreeing with me, but we agree on similar points. Whatzupwitdat?

 

Please don't claim it wasn't law everywhere when it really was. Segregation, while not as flagrant and hardline as it was in the South, was present all around the country. Seperate but equal was like Communism, cute in theory but blacks were not given equal treatment in public education, public contracts, work and other areas all over the country. There were more cases of companies and schools breaking the segregation laws in the Northern states than down south, so I see where you can think that it wasn't there, but seriously, if racism was only down south, why the fuck would anyone black have been living in the south?

 

It wasn't law everywhere. It may have been common unspoken practice, De Facto segregation, which isn't much better, but fact is the things restricting blacks were far less in the North and out West than in the South, and many of those things began to head out with the onset of AA. A lot of Northern Racism things were eliminated via early AA programs and a very progressive atttitude at the time so today the North, while not racist-free, is a very accomandating and unbiased place to live.

 

It may not be a problem for you. You seem to have the stance that racism only mean HATRED of another race. The preconcieved limitations of other races are a form a racsim that is still very much prevalent. I am not saying execs are sitting in their offices ploting on how to keep dem coloereds down, but the public perception of blacks as nothing more than ebonic speaking criminals lies in a lot of peoples minds who have not been fortunate enough to be around and experience the truth of other races. Until stereotypes die(which simply will never happen) racism will not die.

 

Simple disdain for a race is still racism, even if it is mild, and it is a problem for me. Again, I get a lot of cold stares, not people attacking me in the streets (Though I'm sure there are a few people in town who want to do that as well, I probably just haven't seen them yet).

 

Thats cute...lets ignore what I said and go to just the part that you can rant on. The POINT of the argument is that Rome wasn't built overnight. 40 years removed from institutionalized racism, it is foolish an impossible to believe that the entire community would be past it. Irish americans and Jewish americans were in the country HOW long before they were removed from the ghettos? And hate to burst you bubble, but it is historical fact that Irish and Jewish families changed their names in the work place to overcome alot of the shit they were going through. It wasn't a rarity, it happened alot and that is a FACT. So save your fuck yous until you do some research.

 

Bullshit. Your argument basically "They were white, which allowed them to get past it easily enough". Trust me, no matter what color you were, if you were openly Irish or Jewish you were going to have a hard God-damn time. There are still a lot of people who dislike Jews and Irish people, but they were still able to move past that.

 

The Chinese deal with the same racism you did, a lot of it de facto, and they couldn't change their name or "hide" it with their appearance. Their culture is one of hard work and sacrifice and they were able to raise themselves from second-class citizen status to ones who continually are at the top of our educational system.

 

So what if some changed their names? Yes, some did, but the only ones that matter in the argument are the masses that didn't and were able to push past the racism set in front of them. The hatred against Irish and Jews is a very deep one and they were still able to get past it in America despite the obstacles put against them. Again, changed names is an irrelevant argument because the only thing we need to focus on is those who were afflicted with prejudice (Which was very sizable amount).

 

I understand the argument you put forth, but I don't agree very much with how you put it, which is why my reaction was so harsh. I appoligize, but I still think that the Black race is stuck in a rut with thinking that racism is their main foe when they need to stablize some cultural problems to move up to the next step. That's all I'm saying here.

 

I like the way you think. Hey, my mom doesn't think that all whites are racist and neither do I. Therefore, NOONE that is black thinks that all whites are racist. So you are bitching about nothing. And hey, since I don't think that it is wrong to be gay, noone in this nation thinks that it is a wrong thing? We just solved all the worlds problems. If we think like good little boys and girls, everyone else will follow suit. Are you saying because your parents were raised well that racism wasn't taught in this nation? Are you really trying to say that no one was taught that blacks weren't as smart as whites in this nation? Are we saying that this type of thinking didn't pass on through the years? You can look around this board and see that isn't so.

 

No, you said this nation was taught racism and so was it's children: I don't see that in with the huge majority of people that I know or meet. I don't believe it this massive movement and that the huge majority of people were taught that blacks aren't as good as whites. Maybe it's so subtle that even I can't pick it up; maybe they shake their hands differently, but I don't see it a massive disdain or distrust or even of blacks around me outside of the few hillbillies that live nearby. It's not dead, but it's not widespread, institutionalize or accepted in almost all of America save for a few areas here and there. Racism is dying off because people today aren't being taught racism, but tolerance and acceptance.

 

I know racism works both ways. I know plenty of black racist, and have seen plenty of white ones. That doesn't make me highly paranoid. The post on this thread said RACSIM IS DEAD AND BURIED, and for all of the people that still have to experience it, I would like to send out a hearty "No the Fuck it isn't" to ya. And lets not try and say only blacks give you angry stares when you smile and say hi. Maybe you have some fucked up teeth or something...it might not be racism. 

 

Again, it's not a massive problem anymore; it's something that is on the way out and is dying off more and more everyday. I think the "No the fuck it isn't" kinda registers with me that you see it still as a big problem, but I see it as something that we are moving past quickly enough that I'm not worried about it.

 

And my teeth are fine, damn it. I didn't wear braces for nothing .

 

Who has called you racist. Stupid maybe...well...thats only me...but nobody said racist. Yet here you are trying to get a rise out of people by toying with the "N-word". KKKtookmybaby away you are not, bitch, so leave that to him.

 

*Gives KKK the NOD OF APPROVAL and leaves*

 

Bah. Your original post was not the smartest in it's wording, and I'll admit my response wasn't either .

 

I've felt like I'm going to be called one any second because I'm coming on more on Mike's side than anyone else, and I suppose because of you calling him one I felt that you were calling me one. Whatever, then. I certainly feel like I'm being grouped in as one so that saying the actual word doesn't need to be said, and I have been called a racist before for my affirmative action (In real life. Fucking college students...) and I've always felt that the terms share a very similar hatred behind them. But whatever...

 

OMG DOUBLE STANDARD! I'M BEING REPRESSED!

[White Judge Draws Fire for Costume]

Well, it wasn't something that was only in the south. It was a problem in the North too. It wasn't as big as a problem because black labor was cheap. Example of racsim in the North, durring the Great Depresson, all major work done in this country that had Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge, Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, Grand Coolie(sp?) dam, ect had no blacks working for it. It was GOVEREMENT projects that used racism to only give jobs to white males and Native Americans for high rise jobs since "they had no fear of hights and rail walking".

That's kinda odd. I'd need a source on it, because personally it seems a bit out there considering they'd hire Chinese and Native Americans for those jobs as well and they arguably had it worse than blacks in some of those areas. Then again, it isn't completely out of the realm of possibility. Again, I need some proof on this because that really seems out there...

 

I forget which state it was, could very well be Michigan, but they had two law schools. A Black law school and a white law school. The case went to the state supreme court because the blacks complained that if it is going to be seperate but equal, the school would need to have two complete libaries for the students to use. Since no school could afford to stock two, they had to intergrate the law schools.

 

Actually, you are very wrong here. You are either referring to Sweatt v. Painter (Involving University of Texas) or Missouri ex rel Gaines v. Canada, both of which are considered to be part of the South (Or in Missouri's case, a border state that had very Southern rules). Again, all these were where slavery once took place and I really doubt that similar statutes were in law in places like Michigan or California or other places because I've really never heard of them.