Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.Too bad thats too vague for you. Theres more should you wish to educate yourself. Doesnt make a difference to me either way.Did you attempt to look for yourself or are you wasting time again?
"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro"
-MLK
That's pretty vague.
If I claimed that that quote showed that MLK was talking BS when he spoke of his dream of people being judged by their character instead of skin color, you would dismiss me and call me names.
And he was killed in 68, we've been busting our white asses since before then to turn it around for you guys.
THis is plenty clear to me.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
That is the opposite of reverse discrimination.
Either MLK was a two faced liar, or you are misrepresenting his position on the matter.
Blacks getting 310 SAT points for having black skin is being judged by skin color.
"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "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." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."
I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.Too bad thats too vague for you. Theres more should you wish to educate yourself. Doesnt make a difference to me either way.That's pretty vague.
If I claimed that that quote showed that MLK was talking BS when he spoke of his dream of people being judged by their character instead of skin color, you would dismiss me and call me names.
And he was killed in 68, we've been busting our white asses since before then to turn it around for you guys.
THis is plenty clear to me.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
That is the opposite of reverse discrimination.
Either MLK was a two faced liar, or you are misrepresenting his position on the matter.
Blacks getting 310 SAT points for having black skin is being judged by skin color.
"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "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." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."
I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.Too bad thats too vague for you. Theres more should you wish to educate yourself. Doesnt make a difference to me either way.
THis is plenty clear to me.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
That is the opposite of reverse discrimination.
Either MLK was a two faced liar, or you are misrepresenting his position on the matter.
Blacks getting 310 SAT points for having black skin is being judged by skin color.
"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "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." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."
I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.
This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.
I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.
Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.Too bad thats too vague for you. Theres more should you wish to educate yourself. Doesnt make a difference to me either way.That's pretty vague.
If I claimed that that quote showed that MLK was talking BS when he spoke of his dream of people being judged by their character instead of skin color, you would dismiss me and call me names.
And he was killed in 68, we've been busting our white asses since before then to turn it around for you guys.
THis is plenty clear to me.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
That is the opposite of reverse discrimination.
Either MLK was a two faced liar, or you are misrepresenting his position on the matter.
Blacks getting 310 SAT points for having black skin is being judged by skin color.
"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "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." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."
I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
Dude doesnt really want proof. He just wants to argue.It's repeatedly brought to my attention that the beast referred to as Reverse Discrimination may not even exist. I'm amused by this notion, but I already know my opinion on the subject so now I would like to know yours. Specific examples would be wonderful, but a simple yes or no on the poll will suffice. Thanks!Who said anything about getting even with whites if you mean in a vindictive way? Whites are not that important. Whats important is that MLK and the civil rights activists all supported something specifically for Black people to make up for the centuries whites made laws to ensure they could succeed at the detriment to Blacks. That kind of cowardice is amusing when I hear whites complain about it now. Too bad.Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot doesnt it?
Yes, it does.
THis was not supposed to be what the Civil Rights movement was about.
It was supposed to be about equality.
Can you link me to any MLK speech where he admitted that he was looking to get even with whites? That that was the goal?
Or was he a liar?
Or have you modern blacks and libs completely betrayed the Dream he had and turned it into a nightmare for the nation as a whole?
Link?
Seriously? Here it is.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported reparations for blacks. Back to Being Fly
Actually as the OP I haven't argued the point very much. I'm geniounely curious about what people think. The entire reason I joined the site was to hear the opinions of people who DISAGREE with me. Talking to people who agree with you on everything is droll and doesnt do much to expand your horizons. I love to hear the opinions and mind sets of logical and rational people, so long as they can back it up as such.Dude doesnt really want proof. He just wants to argue.It's repeatedly brought to my attention that the beast referred to as Reverse Discrimination may not even exist. I'm amused by this notion, but I already know my opinion on the subject so now I would like to know yours. Specific examples would be wonderful, but a simple yes or no on the poll will suffice. Thanks!Who said anything about getting even with whites if you mean in a vindictive way? Whites are not that important. Whats important is that MLK and the civil rights activists all supported something specifically for Black people to make up for the centuries whites made laws to ensure they could succeed at the detriment to Blacks. That kind of cowardice is amusing when I hear whites complain about it now. Too bad.Sucks when the shoe is on the other foot doesnt it?
Yes, it does.
THis was not supposed to be what the Civil Rights movement was about.
It was supposed to be about equality.
Can you link me to any MLK speech where he admitted that he was looking to get even with whites? That that was the goal?
Or was he a liar?
Or have you modern blacks and libs completely betrayed the Dream he had and turned it into a nightmare for the nation as a whole?
Link?
Seriously? Here it is.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported reparations for blacks. Back to Being Fly
You havent argued it as the OP. I was pointing out that Corell isnt looking for proof of anything. He only wants talking points that agree with his way of thinking. I dont think there is a such thing as reverse discrimination. There is only discrimination. Reverse discrimination is what white boys claim that cant get ahead without hand up.Actually as the OP I haven't argued the point very much. I'm geniounely curious about what people think. The entire reason I joined the site was to hear the opinions of people who DISAGREE with me. Talking to people who agree with you on everything is droll and doesnt do much to expand your horizons. I love to hear the opinions and mind sets of logical and rational people, so long as they can back it up as such.Dude doesnt really want proof. He just wants to argue.It's repeatedly brought to my attention that the beast referred to as Reverse Discrimination may not even exist. I'm amused by this notion, but I already know my opinion on the subject so now I would like to know yours. Specific examples would be wonderful, but a simple yes or no on the poll will suffice. Thanks!Who said anything about getting even with whites if you mean in a vindictive way? Whites are not that important. Whats important is that MLK and the civil rights activists all supported something specifically for Black people to make up for the centuries whites made laws to ensure they could succeed at the detriment to Blacks. That kind of cowardice is amusing when I hear whites complain about it now. Too bad.Yes, it does.
THis was not supposed to be what the Civil Rights movement was about.
It was supposed to be about equality.
Can you link me to any MLK speech where he admitted that he was looking to get even with whites? That that was the goal?
Or was he a liar?
Or have you modern blacks and libs completely betrayed the Dream he had and turned it into a nightmare for the nation as a whole?
Link?
Seriously? Here it is.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported reparations for blacks. Back to Being Fly
You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.THis is plenty clear to me.
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."
That is the opposite of reverse discrimination.
Either MLK was a two faced liar, or you are misrepresenting his position on the matter.
Blacks getting 310 SAT points for having black skin is being judged by skin color.
"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "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." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."
I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.
This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.
I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
Lol well In This reply the Adolf reference implies it as does the kkk reference before hand. So you've unmade your point. Nice work.I see we have two new rookies here, wet behind the ears, who are so butthurt about racial things that instead of introducing themselves to the USMB membership, they jump right in and just can't wait to show us how butthurt they are
Luddly Neddite 's response was right on target, but better than these two laughable nutbags deserve.
What kind of rookies START on a forum like this? So, Adiodato and Correll - what the fuck is wrong with both of you?
Slow day at StormKKKront, or what?
Furthermore, I'm not even white. Your implications are assumed, and therefore without any actual value. Why are you so angry? I'll bet you made an account on this site just so you could wave your dick around at people shouting misinformed rhetoric. I'm simply here to hear other peoples opinions.
Excuse me, little Adolph, where did I write that you were white?
Hmmmm, looks like you have a major comprehension problem.
Oh my bad it said that u quoted my comment I thought you meant me. Misunderstanding.You havent argued it as the OP. I was pointing out that Corell isnt looking for proof of anything. He only wants talking points that agree with his way of thinking. I dont think there is a such thing as reverse discrimination. There is only discrimination. Reverse discrimination is what white boys claim that cant ahead without hand up.Actually as the OP I haven't argued the point very much. I'm geniounely curious about what people think. The entire reason I joined the site was to hear the opinions of people who DISAGREE with me. Talking to people who agree with you on everything is droll and doesnt do much to expand your horizons. I love to hear the opinions and mind sets of logical and rational people, so long as they can back it up as such.Dude doesnt really want proof. He just wants to argue.It's repeatedly brought to my attention that the beast referred to as Reverse Discrimination may not even exist. I'm amused by this notion, but I already know my opinion on the subject so now I would like to know yours. Specific examples would be wonderful, but a simple yes or no on the poll will suffice. Thanks!Who said anything about getting even with whites if you mean in a vindictive way? Whites are not that important. Whats important is that MLK and the civil rights activists all supported something specifically for Black people to make up for the centuries whites made laws to ensure they could succeed at the detriment to Blacks. That kind of cowardice is amusing when I hear whites complain about it now. Too bad.
Link?
Seriously? Here it is.
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported reparations for blacks. Back to Being Fly
Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.
"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "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." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."
I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.
This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.
I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?
For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.
You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.
Is that your intent?
Posting a lot of literature doesnt answer the question posed to him. His claim was false no matter how he tries to deflect around the task put to him.At least Correll IS posting a lot of literature to back up his stance. Calling people stupid racists is hardly an argument.
Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?I am intelligent.
We have had a massive program by the government of special compensatory measures for blacks.
HOw long do you want to use the law to discriminate against whites?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.
This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.
I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?
For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.
You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.
Is that your intent?
It answers the question posed originally, though. Because I never specified "laws". although an example of an actual law would be it is illegal to say ni**er where I live, but not ****, faggot, or daygo.Posting a lot of literature doesnt answer the question posed to him. His claim was false no matter how he tries to deflect around the task put to him.At least Correll IS posting a lot of literature to back up his stance. Calling people stupid racists is hardly an argument.
That had nothing to do with his claim though. His claim was about massive programs specifically for Blacks.It answers the question posed originally, though. Because I never specified "laws". although an example of an actual law would be it is illegal to say ni**er where I live, but not ****, faggot, or daygo.Posting a lot of literature doesnt answer the question posed to him. His claim was false no matter how he tries to deflect around the task put to him.At least Correll IS posting a lot of literature to back up his stance. Calling people stupid racists is hardly an argument.
Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?
You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.
This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.
I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?
For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.
You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.
Is that your intent?
Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?
Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.The 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.
This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.
I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?
For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.
You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.
Is that your intent?
Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?
What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.
Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."
You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?
For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.
You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.
Is that your intent?
Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?
The fact that some women and/or hispanics have also benefited from the Civil Rights Act, does not negate in any fashion the sacrifices that White American has made for Black America in supporting pro-black/anti-white discrimination for the last 50 years.
.
What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?
For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.
You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.
Is that your intent?
Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?
The fact that some women and/or hispanics have also benefited from the Civil Rights Act, does not negate in any fashion the sacrifices that White American has made for Black America in supporting pro-black/anti-white discrimination for the last 50 years.
.
Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.
Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?
The fact that some women and/or hispanics have also benefited from the Civil Rights Act, does not negate in any fashion the sacrifices that White American has made for Black America in supporting pro-black/anti-white discrimination for the last 50 years.
.
It is a massive government program that is primarily for Blacks. It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.
Are you saying the fact that a women and Hispanics also benefited from this act somehow invalidates the sacrifices made by White America is passing and supporting this law for 50 years?
Using word games to dismiss such sacrifices, that is idiocy, your idiocy.
You do realize that White Americans are just about done with such efforts, don't you?
Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?
The fact that some women and/or hispanics have also benefited from the Civil Rights Act, does not negate in any fashion the sacrifices that White American has made for Black America in supporting pro-black/anti-white discrimination for the last 50 years.
.
It is a massive government program that is primarily for Blacks. It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.
Are you saying the fact that a women and Hispanics also benefited from this act somehow invalidates the sacrifices made by White America is passing and supporting this law for 50 years?
Using word games to dismiss such sacrifices, that is idiocy, your idiocy.
You do realize that White Americans are just about done with such efforts, don't you?
