bigdaddy2003;1397817 wrote:Right. That makes a lot of sense to me. You call me out because you said my statement to boatshoes proves I can't debate but you reply with this to him after his post instead of replying to my last post aimed towards you. By the way doesn't your latter statement contradict your original statement towards me? I mean a person who calls someone out for what you did should never use the same reasoning as a retort even if it's supposed to be mocking another person. Here is why your statement makes 0 sense though. I've read a ton of boatshoes' political posts and every post on this thread and like I said he's made it clear about how he feels on the subject of race and it's aligned with the position of a person such as Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz who are liberal Democrats. It's not hard to follow but I understand you've lost a few brain cells. You did make me laugh earlier in the thread though when you made it out that conservatives are the ones who call people names to avoid debates. I guess you need to read my Twitter interactions. I could go through and show you valid debate points I've tweeted to liberals who call me a moron or racist and then block me so they don't have to keep talking. I didn't just label him and stop talking. If I would've called him an idiot for his opinion and never returned to the thread then you would have a point. You're saying I'm a political retard because I'm not posting facts on the subject but neither is he. There are no facts regarding how you think a group of people should be treated. It's fine that he believes minorities should be allowed to have free reign in the country and white people have to take anything that happens to them but don't expect that opinion to be welcomed by everyone.

bigdaddy2003;1397817 wrote:Right. That makes a lot of sense to me. You call me out because you said my statement to boatshoes proves I can't debate but you reply with this to him after his post instead of replying to my last post aimed towards you. By the way doesn't your latter statement contradict your original statement towards me? I mean a person who calls someone out for what you did should never use the same reasoning as a retort even if it's supposed to be mocking another person. Here is why your statement makes 0 sense though. I've read a ton of boatshoes' political posts and every post on this thread and like I said he's made it clear about how he feels on the subject of race and it's aligned with the position of a person such as Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz who are liberal Democrats. It's not hard to follow but I understand you've lost a few brain cells. You did make me laugh earlier in the thread though when you made it out that conservatives are the ones who call people names to avoid debates. I guess you need to read my Twitter interactions. I could go through and show you valid debate points I've tweeted to liberals who call me a moron or racist and then block me so they don't have to keep talking. I didn't just label him and stop talking. If I would've called him an idiot for his opinion and never returned to the thread then you would have a point. You're saying I'm a political retard because I'm not posting facts on the subject but neither is he. There are no facts regarding how you think a group of people should be treated. It's fine that he believes minorities should be allowed to have free reign in the country and white people have to take anything that happens to them but don't expect that opinion to be welcomed by everyone.

sleeper;1397724 wrote:Like I said, minorities need to grow up.

rmolin73;1397951 wrote:Yet the only people whining, crying and stomping their feet on this site are a few white guys. Get out of your little fictitious world. Do some blacks leech on the system? Yes! But you guys that cry about the few that do are just as bad as them. Just STFU and get yours.

sleeper;1397972 wrote:I'm sure you say the same thing about blacks in the 1950's and earlier. "Stop whining and crying". LOL

Gblock;1397978 wrote:

yes AA is the same as what was happening to blacks in the 50-60's aka emmit till...got ya:thumbup:

Gblock;1397985 wrote:well comparing AA to what was normal for treatment of blacks during that time is just as laughable was my point

as far as blacks killing whites..meh they mostly kill other blacks

O-Trap;1397982 wrote:In all fairness, what happened to blacks as a whole in the '50s and '60s, on average, is not even what happened to Emmit Till. Extremes don't define what is normative.

Now documentation being different through the time periods, this would be impractical, but would it be difficult for someone to cite stories today of black men shooting and killing white people?

Again, extreme cases.

Gblock;1397985 wrote:well comparing AA to what was normal for treatment of blacks during that time is just as laughable was my point

as far as blacks killing whites..meh they mostly kill other blacks

Gblock;1397988 wrote:and the guys who did that to emmit till were not even convicted

FatHobbit;1397991 wrote:Even if you remove the extreme cases, there is hardly a comparison between any black on white violence you can find today and the organized repression and violence that blacks historically faced from whites.

sleeper;1397972 wrote:I'm sure you say the same thing about blacks in the 1950's and earlier. "Stop whining and crying". LOL

rmolin73;1398007 wrote:We're not talking about the 50's we're talking about now. So continue your bitching and moaning about a few blacks bitching and moaning. You do it so well.

O-Trap;1397996 wrote:Historically, I'm not disagreeing. As it pertains to those alive TODAY (ie those who might benefit or be limited a la AA), though, I'm not sure we're dealing with as wide a difference.

sleeper;1398011 wrote:Oh right I just just stop "complaining" and allow RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION to occur. :rolleyes:

Glad you to see you support RACISM. :thumbdown:

FatHobbit;1398015 wrote:I agree somewhat that nobody alive today faced the same discrimination as their parents. But their parents and grand parents faced significant discrimination and they didn't get to start with the same advantages that most white people get. My family was hardly rich but I did have a lot of advantages that other people did not have. (You could argue that poor white people have the same disadvantages as poor black people and I would not disagree) The American dream is that children get to work hard and improve their life so they can have a better life than their parents. When all the parents of a certain group have been repressed, then all of their children are going to start out a little bit farther behind. I don't mind giving them a boost so they can be successful.

rmolin73;1398016 wrote:Here you go being a drama queen. I guarantee you I do more to eliminate racism/class ism in my personal life than you.

sleeper=Al Sharpton of the OC

Crimson streak;1398027 wrote:Speaking of al sharpton he plays a big role in keeping racism alive and kicking. The **** that dude says is mind boggling

rmolin73;1398031 wrote:That is his goal to keep racism going so that he is relevant.

FatHobbit;1398015 wrote:I agree somewhat that nobody alive today faced the same discrimination as their parents. But their parents and grand parents faced significant discrimination and they didn't get to start with the same advantages that most white people get. My family was hardly rich but I did have a lot of advantages that other people did not have. (You could argue that poor white people have the same disadvantages as poor black people and I would not disagree) The American dream is that children get to work hard and improve their life so they can have a better life than their parents. When all the parents of a certain group have been repressed, then all of their children are going to start out a little bit farther behind. I don't mind giving them a boost so they can be successful.