Allen West Delivers Epic Speech On GOP's Proud History Fighting For Black Equality...

[GuyPinestra]

It is still on the books but much of it is over. When I started working 35 years ago, you had to document and classify all your personnel and personnel decisions. Quotas were big and you had to have reasons for not meeting goals. It is much easier now and primarily focuses on discrimination complaints

Today, AA is more about ensuring affirmative action opportunities are there rather than meeting numbers.

Tell that to the thousands and thousands of highly qualified college aspirants who can't get accepted because they're a couple of shades to light..

Yea....still happens.

But still, millions have been accepted where they never would before. Those highly qualified white applicants still get to go to college......always have....always will

It is not just diversity in skin color that they are looking for but diversity in social and economic backgrounds. Top colleges are no longer the sole province of rich white kids with connections

The seats should go to the students with the best grades, PERIOD! I don't give a fuck what color they are.

 

[Unkotare]

Folks like the caveman never gave a shit about discrimination against blacks. It is only when he perceives racism against whites that he gets outraged

Has he ever said that, or are you being a dishonest fuck - AGAIN?

Read his whiny posts on this thread

While you are at it, show me any post where caveman has ever stood up for the rights of blacks or gays

Answer my question, you dishonest fuck.

 

[Flaylo]

In a sweeping and stirring oration on the floor of the House of Representatives, Rep. Allen West (R-FL) proudly recounted the Republican Party’s long history of fighting for black freedom against the Democratic Party’s history of racism and oppression.

Rep. West’s speech offered a timeline of Republican Party victories on behalf of African Americans’ long battle for equality. From the elections of the first black members of Congress (Sen. Hiram Revels (R-MS) and Rep. Joseph Rainey (R-SC)), to the adoption of the 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, 1875 Civil Rights Act, 1957 Civil Rights Act, 1964 Civil Rights Act, and of course the Emancipation itself, Rep. West recounted how each victory was the result of the Republican Party’s commitment to freedom for all citizens, regardless of hue.

Rep. West also recounted the victories of GOP luminaries like President Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, President Dwight Eisenhower, and Sen. Everett Dirksen.

Allen West commemorates Black History Month by telling the truth about Republicans and Black history - YouTube


Read More:
» Rep. Allen West Delivers Epic Speech on GOP’s Proud History of Fighting For Black Equality - Big Government

Taken straight from the NBRA website, a waste of time and not many black people gave a shit.

 

[Flaylo]

The speech in itself is playing the race card with politics.

 

[daveman]

Folks like the caveman never gave a shit about discrimination against blacks. It is only when he perceives racism against whites that he gets outraged

Has he ever said that, or are you being a dishonest fuck - AGAIN?

Read his whiny posts on this thread

While you are at it, show me any post where caveman has ever stood up for the rights of blacks or gays

How about this one, you lying piece of shit?

I believe in equal treatment for ALL.

 

[daveman]

It is still on the books but much of it is over. When I started working 35 years ago, you had to document and classify all your personnel and personnel decisions. Quotas were big and you had to have reasons for not meeting goals. It is much easier now and primarily focuses on discrimination complaints

Today, AA is more about ensuring affirmative action opportunities are there rather than meeting numbers.

Tell that to the thousands and thousands of highly qualified college aspirants who can't get accepted because they're a couple of shades to light..

Yea....still happens.

But still, millions have been accepted where they never would before. Those highly qualified white applicants still get to go to college......always have....always will

It is not just diversity in skin color that they are looking for but diversity in social and economic backgrounds. Top colleges are no longer the sole province of rich white kids with connections

How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others

 

[NYcarbineer]

Has he ever said that, or are you being a dishonest fuck - AGAIN?

Read his whiny posts on this thread

While you are at it, show me any post where caveman has ever stood up for the rights of blacks or gays

How about this one, you lying piece of shit?

I believe in equal treatment for ALL.

Really, so you believe in taking action to provide a poor kid the resources to go to college that would match those available to a rich kid?

 

[rightwinger]

Tell that to the thousands and thousands of highly qualified college aspirants who can't get accepted because they're a couple of shades to light..

Yea....still happens.

But still, millions have been accepted where they never would before. Those highly qualified white applicants still get to go to college......always have....always will

It is not just diversity in skin color that they are looking for but diversity in social and economic backgrounds. Top colleges are no longer the sole province of rich white kids with connections

The seats should go to the students with the best grades, PERIOD! I don't give a fuck what color they are.

Top colleges are not looking just at grades and test scores. To them, college is not about who is smartest. It is easy to stock your student body with a bunch of rich white geeks
They want diversity. They don't want the kids of investment bankers rubbing shoulders with the kids of Congressmen. So they include other factors in their selection including community service, social and economic diversity.

 

[rightwinger]

Has he ever said that, or are you being a dishonest fuck - AGAIN?

Read his whiny posts on this thread

While you are at it, show me any post where caveman has ever stood up for the rights of blacks or gays

How about this one, you lying piece of shit?

I believe in equal treatment for ALL.

And I believe in truth, justice and the American way

 

[Flaylo]

Before you fucktards talk about doing away with AA you have to evaluate whether the playing field is fair and from what I read some of you dipshits are of the belief that AA gives least qualified positions over people who are more qualified, you are wrong, stop being fucking racists yourselves and assuming that all people who benefit from AA are lesser qualified people. Dumbfucks.

 

[Flaylo]

Affirmative Action primarily benefits white women says
conservative female author

"I regard affirmative action as pernicious — a system that had
wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately
abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the
number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools
were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for
blacks."
--Author/lecturer Prof. Camille Paglia

If as some authors hold AA benefits mostly white women,
white guys also benefit from that extra pay and perks brought
home by their white wives under AA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authors below argue that affirmative action primarily
benefits white women, not blacks or men.

Warning

WHY WORKPLACE AFFIRMATIVE ACTION HAS FAILED BLACK FAMILIES- 2003

"Affirmative action” means positive steps taken to increase the
representation of women and minorities in areas of
employment, education, and business from which they have
been historically excluded. —Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy

"In recent years, the affirmative action debate has focused on
government-sponsored affirmative action and university
admissions, leaving corporate affirmative action relatively
unexamined." --Christopher M. Leporini

To pay-equity feminists and the mainstream media, this
perspective on affirmative action may be the most threatening
of all perspectives on any topic. Hence it will be the most
ignored by them.


Black Americans have at least one good reason to persist in
demanding affirmative action: their wages, which ought to be
the true reflection of affirmative action's success -- where the
rubber meets the road -- continue to gain poorly on whites’.

Between 1985 and 2000, blacks’ median wage advanced on
whites’ by a mere 1.2 percent. Why? Because although
“affirmative action programs are often described in the press as
being based on ‘racial preference,’” says Dr. Manning Marable,
Director of the Institute for Research in African-American
Studies, Columbia University, New York City, “the
overwhelming majority of those who are the chief beneficiaries
of affirmative action are white women.”

Dr. Marable is hardly the only person aware of this fact. In the
2006 book Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to
Systemic Discrimination Against Men, the authors write,
"Although polls have shown considerable American support for
affirmative action, those who advocate equality of opportunity
(even in a modified form) have criticized it for...conferring
greater benefits on white women than blacks of either sex, for
whom affirmative action was originally designed."

Citing a statistic representative of many employers up and
down the country, a March 1998 press release from the State of
Washington’s Office of the Governor informs: “Of Washington
state workers who have benefited directly from affirmative
action, 60 percent are white women….”

Thanks to the myriad mandated affirmative-action programs at
public institutions and at employers doing business with or
receiving funds from the federal government, and thanks to the
voluntary affirmative-action programs of private-sector
employers, white women have done quite well. Compare their
wage gain from 1985 to 2000 to other groups'. White men's
median wage rose 60 percent, black men's 65 percent, and
black women's 70 percent: white women came well out on top
with a 78 percent gain. White women's big leap contributed
greatly to blacks’ paltry gain on whites.

Feminists in particular strongly support white women’s
inclusion in affirmative action. The Gloria Steinemites believe
white women experience an oppression similar to blacks'.
White women's oppression, say these feminists, stems
primarily from the fact that white women have been excluded,
like blacks, from “white men’s” jobs.
But unlike blacks, says Warren Farrell, author of Why Men
Earn More (read about the book and watch a Real Video of
Farrell with audience participation), “Women are the only
‘oppressed’ group…to be born into the middle class and upper
class as frequently as the ‘oppressor.’”

Moreover, white women generally have been able to find a
well-paid husband roughly to the same degree that white men
have been able to find a well-paid job. Via marriage, birth, and
inheritance, white women have benefited from white men’s
jobs as much as white men themselves. When they divorce,
they receive, on average, more child support and alimony than
blacks. (The term alimony may provoke cynical laughter
among the black women whoEditor & Publisher consider
alimony a privilege reserved for white women.) Recognizing
women’s economic well-being, an Editor & Publisher front
page in 1996 touted: “Who controls most of the wealth in the
nation? Women.” The headline was not, of course, talking
about black women. Says PBS's "To the Contrary" : "Women
actually control 51.3% of percent wealth in the United States."
Women also control, according to American Demographic,
consumer spending by a wide margin in nearly every consumer
category.

"I regard affirmative action as pernicious — a system that had
wonderful ideals when it started but was almost immediately
abused for the benefit of white middle-class women. And the
number one sign of it is in the universities. The elite schools
were destroyed by affirmative action for women, not for
blacks."
--Author/lecturer Prof. Camille Paglia


White female gains under affirmative action

Linking white women to affirmative-action goals, right or
wrong, has yielded a great irony in an unintended consequence.
Just as most white men share their income and assets with
white women, most white women reciprocate with white men.
More to the point, they share with them their affirmative action
gains. This means, possibly, that by virtue of the huge number
of white women assisted by affirmative action, white men are
the program’s second biggest beneficiaries, despite however
often they as individuals may suffer “reverse” discrimination.
For every white man hurt by affirmative action, another might
be obliquely aided. Perhaps even many of those who are hurt
are partially or fully compensated — "under the table," some
blacks could argue — when affirmative action rewards their
wives.
That white men profit via this roundabout fashion is no secret.
“Affirmative action has enabled wives and daughters and
mothers and girlfriends to compete in the workplace,” said
Ralph G. Neas, former executive director of the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, “and that has helped entire
families, including white males in those families.” Corretta
Scott King, speaking at a Washington County university on
Martin Luther King Day, didn’t explicitly say affirmative
action helps white men, but implied as much when she said,
“So affirmative action benefits all families.” [Why a program
to help all families?!]


"Between 1974 and 2004, white and black men in their 30s
experienced a decline in income, with the largest decline
among black men. However, median family incomes for both
racial groups increased, because of large increases in women’s
incomes. Income growth was particularly high for white
women. The lack of income growth for black men combined
with low marriage rates in the black population has had a
negative impact on trends in family income for black families."
-Economic Mobility Project

Thus, a program that was conceived to help the oppressed
appears to help the “oppressors” about as much. Who knows, it
may lend a hand to more middle- and upper-class white
families than to poor black ones, since a beneficiary’s
economic status isn’t a qualifying factor. How many times, I
wonder, has the wife or daughter of a well-paid white man been
boosted by affirmative action into a well-paid job herself -- a
job that might otherwise have gone to a poor but qualified
black American? This perversion of justice may occur often,
and it would at least partly explain why, despite the strides of
many individual blacks, blacks as a group have economically
progressed so little on whites. And at a appalling 1.2 percent
progression every 1.5 decades, black households won’t reach
wage parity with whites' for at least 200 years.

Which group has affirmative action benefitted the least? Black
men. Which group was originally intended to be the sole
beneficiary of affirmative action? Black men. Shhh! Don't talk
about this!


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PSAT and SAT modified college admission tests so white girls
primarily would score higher, and reduce the number of men
-------------
College Board Revises Test to Improve Chances
for Girls. 1996. Karen W. Arenson 10/2/1996 NY Times
College Board Revises Test to Improve Chances for Girls - New York Times
-----------------
QUOTE:

"Resolving a complaint that girls lose out to boys unfairly in the awarding
of the prestigious National Merit Scholarships, the College Board has
agreed to modify its Preliminary Scholastic Assessment Test, the main
determinant in awarding the scholarships, the Federal Department of
Education announced yesterday.

In the agreement, reached with the department's Office of Civil Rights, t
he College Board said that beginning in 1997, it would add a multiple-choice
test on writing to the P.S.A.T. exam, which is taken by juniors. One version
of the test taken by seniors, the Scholastic Assessment Test, already
contains a similar section on writing.

Donald M. Stewart, president of the College Board, which oversees
both tests, said the board expected that the addition of the additional
test was likely to give girls higher scores since girls ''tend to do better
than boys'' on that type of test."
----------------------------------------------------------------

Social security setup benefits primarily white women at the
expense of blacks says conservative author

Says historian/economist Thomas Sowell,
"[Social Security] is not a racial policy...but economists who
have studied it have long described it as a system that transfers
money from black men to white women, given the different life
expectancies of these two groups.”

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Other "minorities" quickly piggy-backed on a program
ostensibly set up to help blacks including white women who
are not a numerical "minority argues conservative author
Sowell.

QUOTE:
"As in other countries, however, these policies spread far
beyond the initial beneficiaries. Blacks are just 12 percent of
the American population, but affirmative action programs have
expanded over the years to include not only other racial or
ethnic groups, but also women, so that such policies now apply
to a substantial majority of the American population... the top
20 percent of black income earners had their income share
rising at about the same rate as that of their white counterparts,
while the bottom 20 percent of black income earners had their
income share fall at more than double the rate of the bottom 20
percent of white income earners. In short, the affirmative action
era in the United States saw the more fortunate blacks benefit
while the least fortunate lost ground in terms of their share of
incomes. Neither the gains nor the losses can be arbitrarily
attributed to affirmative action but neither can affirmative
action claim to have advanced lower-income blacks when in
fact those fell behind."

Sowell holds that immigrants classified as "minorities",
suffering no past discrimination in the United States are
benefitting well from Affirmative Action. The Fanjul family
from Cuba for example, with a fortune exceeding $500 million
- received contract set asides for minority businesses. European
businessmen from Portugal received the bulk of the money
paid to "minority owned construction firms" between 1886 and
1990n in Washington D.C. Asian businessmen immigrating to
the United States had also received preferential access to
government contracts.

Sowell also argues that while blacks are the claimed
beneficiaries of a program primarily intended to benefit blacks,
a huge majority of "minority and female owned" businesses are
in fact owned by groups ''other'' than blacks, including Asians,
Hispanics and women. In addition the vast majority of
"minority" firms appeared to gain little from government
set-asides. in Cincinnati for example, 682 minority forms
appeared o n the city's approved list but 13% of these
companies received 62% of preferential access and 83% of the
money. Nationally, a miniscule one-fourth of one percent of
minority-owned enterprises are certified to receive preferences
under the Small Business Administration, but even within this
tiny number, 2% of the firms received 40% of the money.<ref>
Sowell, 2004. Affirmative Action Around the World, pp
115-147</ref>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some scholarly studies find biggest gains of Affirmative
Action go to already affluent white women

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Alleged "calamity" affecting white males "swamped" by
black AA quotas is bogus, according to detailed US Dept of
Labor survey of reverse discrimination cases. Most cases
brought by white complainers lacked merit, courts ruled.

FROM NY TIMES ARTICLE- CITING US DEPT OF
LABOR STUDIES
Reverse-discrimination claims fell into two categories:
individual decisions in which a white man asserted that he
would have been hired for a job had he been black or female,
and cases that claimed programs or plans unfairly favored
women and minorities.

“Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant
failing to examine his or her own qualifications,” Mr.
Blumrosen wrote, “and erroneously assuming that when a
woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex,
not qualifications.


Affirmative action has caused very few claims of reverse
discrimination by white people, according to a draft of a report
prepared by the Labor Department. The author says his findings
poke holes in the theory that affirmative-action programs
unfairly benefit minorities at the expense of white workers.

The report, prepared by a law professor at Rutgers University,
Alfred W. Blumrosen, found fewer than 100
reverse-discrimination cases among more than 3,000
discrimination opinions by Federal district and appeals courts
from 1990 to 1994.

A "high proportion" of the reverse-discrimination claims lacked
merit, the review found. Reverse discrimination was
established in six cases, and the courts provided appropriate
relief in those cases, it said.

"This research suggests that the problem of 'reverse
discrimination' is not widespread; and that where it exists, the
courts have given relief," Mr. Blumrosen wrote. "Nothing in
these cases would justify dismantling the existing structure of
equal employment opportunity programs."
Reverse-discrimination claims fell into two categories:
individual decisions in which a white man asserted that he
would have been hired for a job had he been black or female,
and cases that claimed programs or plans unfairly favored
women and minorities.

"Many of the cases were the result of a disappointed applicant
failing to examine his or her own qualifications," Mr.
Blumrosen wrote, "and erroneously assuming that when a
woman or minority got the job, it was because of race or sex,
not qualifications."
Reverse Discrimination Complaints Rare, Labor Study Reports - NYTimes.com
(Blumrosen, A. (1996: pp 5-6) US Department of Labor:
Discrimination COmplaints Review (1990-1994))

Other detailed studies BY SCHOLARS show very little
reverse discrimnation against whites in employment, exposing
the bogus propaganda spun by racist "biodiversity" proponents.
Most discrimination complaints brought by white men actually
involve sex, not race discrimintion, and the main opponent of
the white men in said complaints was WHITE women.

"Reverse discrimination is rate both in absolute terms and
relative to conventional discrimination. The most direct
evidence for this conclusion comes from employment-audit
studies. On every measured outcome, African-American men
were much more likely than white men to experience
discrimination, and Latinos were more likely than
non-Hispanic men to experience discrimination (Heckman and
Siegelman 1993, p. 218) Statistics on the numbers and
outcomes of complaints of employment discrimination also
suggest that reverse discriination is rare. According to national
surverys, relatively few whites have experienced reverse
discrimination. Only 5 to 12 percent of whites beleive that their
race has cost them a job or promotion, compared to 36 percent
of African AMericans... Alfred Blumrosen's (1996, pp. 5-6)
exhaustive review of discrimination complaints filed with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offers additional
evidence that reverse discrimination is rare...
[of cases] two percent were by white men
charging sex, race or national origin discrimination
(three-quarters of these charged sex discriminatin) and 1.8
percent were by whote women charging race discrimination
(Blumrosen p. 5)"
--Tracy E. Ore - 2005. The social construction of difference and
inequality p. 390

Other detailed studies show trivial to almost no "reverse
discrimination" against whites in employment. These studies
note that reverse discrimination has occurred, but its prevalence
is rare
QUOTE:
"Barbara Reskin 1998) also acknowledges that some white
men are hurt. In the four-page section n reverse discrimination,
she discusses studies showing that few EEOC cases involving
charges of dsicrimination filed by white men (Blumrosen 1995,
1996) and the few federal appeals court cases involving
discrimination where white men are the plaintiffs (Burstein,
1991; She concludes, "Although rare, reverse discrimination
does occur."
--Fred Pincus 2010. Reverse discrimination: dismantling the
myth

 

[paulitician]

Before you fucktards talk about doing away with AA you have to evaluate whether the playing field is fair and from what I read some of you dipshits are of the belief that AA gives least qualified positions over people who are more qualified, you are wrong, stop being fucking racists yourselves and assuming that all people who benefit from AA are lesser qualified people. Dumbfucks.

Yeah, but you're a racist African American Democrat no? So, we can't really take your word on anything. You just don't have the credibility. Sorry, but it is what it is.

 

[Pheonixops]

The problem with this view is that King openly advocated quotas and racial set-asides.He wrote that the "Negro today is not struggling for some abstract, vague rights, but for concrete improvement in his way of life." When equal opportunity laws failed to achieve this, King looked for other ways. In his book Where Do We Go From Here, he suggested that "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him, to equip him to compete on a just and equal basis." To do this he expressed support for quotas. In a 1968 Playboy interview, he said, "If a city has a 30% Negro population, then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30% of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas." King was more than just talk in this regard. Working through his Operation Breadbasket, King threatened boycotts of businesses that did not hire blacks in proportion to their population.
King was even an early proponent of reparations. In his 1964 book, Why We Can’t Wait, he wrote,
No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries…Yet a price can be placed on unpaid wages. The ancient common law has always provided a remedy for the appropriation of a the labor of one human being by another. This law should be made to apply for American Negroes. The payment should be in the form of a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law."
Educate yourself more HERE

Why do you think consrvatives quote MLK on his anti-racism ideas but ignore his demand for quotas and set-asides?

Could it possibly be because they agree with the first part but disagree with the latter?

I am quite aware of MLKs ethnocentric view of reparations and quotas, and it demeans him that he made such demands.

After more than four decades of quotas, AA and other set-asides, blacks are WORSE off than before.

People need equality and training if you care for them not hand outs.

What parent gives their kids everything they ask for and never trains them to obtain what they want for themselves by their own effort and capabilities?

A lazy ass parent who just doesnt want to be bothered and gives in to get the kids oout of their hair most often, but whatever the case, they do not have their kids best interest at heart when they do that crap.

MLK was sadly wrong on quotas and most older consrvatives know it and I do also.

I think it's because they are trying to manipulate and wrongly define his TOTAL MESSAGE TO SUIT THEIR AGENDAS.

I don't think that it "demeans" or "demeaned' him to seek what he felt was a just remedy to overcome the oppression that Black people (and others) faced for centuries in this country.

"Worse" off than before what? "Worse off" in what specific manner, wedlock?

I agree that ALL people need equality and training, not handouts.

I've seen plenty of shitty parents of ALL colors behave that way.

We are all welcome to have out own opinions. I think he was trying to find an immediate and long term remedy. I certainly wouldn't try to force someone to take my money, so I can eat with them (unless it's a public accommodation paid for by all taxpayers), I would prefer to go to people who will welcome me and treat me with respect. When the Blacks boycotted the buses in Mongomery and started making their own way, this is the opposition they faced from the local government and some white citizens:
"Instead of riding buses, boycotters organized a system of carpools, with car owners volunteering their vehicles or themselves driving people to various destinations. Some white housewives also drove their black domestic servants to work. It cannot be determined to what extent this was based on sympathy with the boycott, or simply the desire to have their employees present and working.[citation needed] When the city pressured local insurance companies to stop insuring cars used in the carpools, the boycott leaders arranged policies with Lloyd's of London.

Black taxi drivers charged ten cents per ride, a fare equal to the cost to ride the bus, in support of the boycott. When word of this reached city officials on December 8, 1955, the order went out to fine any cab driver who charged a rider less than 45 cents. In addition to using private motor vehicles, some people used non-motorized means to get around, such as cycling, walking, or even riding mules or driving horse-drawn buggies. Some people also hitchhiked. During rush hours, sidewalks were often crowded. As the buses received extremely few, if any, passengers, their officials asked the City Commission to allow stopping service to black communities.[10] Across the nation, black churches raised money to support the boycott and collected new and slightly used shoes to replace the tattered footwear of Montgomery's black citizens, many of whom walked everywhere rather than ride the buses and submit to Jim Crow laws.

In response, opposing whites swelled the ranks of the White Citizens' Council, the membership of which doubled during the course of the boycott. The councils sometimes resorted to violence: Martin Luther King's and Ralph Abernathy's houses were firebombed, as were four black Baptist churches. Boycotters were often physically attacked."

 

[Pheonixops]

So, it looks like the trade unions were racist.

Meanwhile, in this century, the GOP recognizes that treating people differently based on their race is wrong.

Democrats embrace it.

LOL, that's the only "comeback" to the FACTS that I presented? Now you're moving the goal posts to "this century"..................................

You have made it very clear you support racism to make up for racism.

WHAT A SHIT HEAD.

Instead of talking out of your ASSHOLE , why not show me SPECIFICALLY where I said such a thing? SHIT HEAD.

 

[Unkotare]

Read his whiny posts on this thread

While you are at it, show me any post where caveman has ever stood up for the rights of blacks or gays

How about this one, you lying piece of shit?

I believe in equal treatment for ALL.

Really, so you believe in taking action to provide a poor kid the resources to go to college that would match those available to a rich kid?

Here we go again with the leftie mental block...

 

[Pheonixops]

So, it looks like the trade unions were racist.

Meanwhile, in this century, the GOP recognizes that treating people differently based on their race is wrong.

Democrats embrace it.

LOL, that's the only "comeback" to the FACTS that I presented? Now you're moving the goal posts to "this century"..................................

Isn't that what you retards do when someone brings up the KKK being the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party?

If it weren't for double standards, leftists wouldn't have any standards at all.

Did you have too much to drink? I notice that you and some of your cohorts like to toss baseless accusations out there, but can NEVER SEEM TO BACK IT UP WHEN CALLED ON IT. Thanks for the laugh though!

 

[Unkotare]

They don't want the kids of investment bankers rubbing shoulders with the kids of Congressmen.

Oh yes they damn well do. Don't kid yourself.

 

[rightwinger]

They don't want the kids of investment bankers rubbing shoulders with the kids of Congressmen.

Oh yes they damn well do. Don't kid yourself.

Well....not exclusively

 

[Pheonixops]

Yawn. Yet another in a seemingly endless series of "The GOP is all RACIST!!!" flingers of leftist poo.

Where did I say that? Presenting facts showing that the GOP at one time supported Affirmative Action, is saying that "The GOP is all RACIST!!!"?

Do you deny you believe it?

That would be an utter waste of keystrokes. And dishonest.

I don't like to make ignorant blanket generalizations. There are plenty of GOP'ers who i like and have voted for. One is my Governor Bob McDonnell (much to my wife's chagrin), I voted for him and like him. Jack Kemp is one who I had a great deal of respect and admiration for. Ron Paul is the only guy out of the GOP line up that I would vote for. Gary Johnson, when he was a republican, is another guy I could vote for and may vote for on the Libertarian ticket. Yo are batting ZERO buddy!

 

[daveman]

Read his whiny posts on this thread

While you are at it, show me any post where caveman has ever stood up for the rights of blacks or gays

How about this one, you lying piece of shit?

I believe in equal treatment for ALL.

Really, so you believe in taking action to provide a poor kid the resources to go to college that would match those available to a rich kid?

That wouldn't be equal treatment, unless you're also willing to give the rich kid the same taxpayer dollars.

And you're not.