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.
Its all good to talk tough on the internet but I have noticed no change in white behavior in public. White guys like you still cant hold my gaze and turn red with frustration and anger. When is the uprising? I'm waiting for the first brave white racist to come my way.One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.
In essence, that is correct. The public is tired of being bullied by punks.One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.
In essence, that is correct. The public is tired of being bullied by punks.One thing is certain. Political correctness and the race card has lost a lot of its power. Many millions of people no longer give a fuck and are tired of being falsely accused of being racist just for having a policy ideal that is pro-American power.
Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.Correll argues that whites are discriminated against but does not show how with objective evidence. I think what he wants is a White Man's Civilization in the United States and is desperately unhappy that we don't.
I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.
I will be happy to do so again.
Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.
The Power of Race
"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997
Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"
As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.
Browns get only 130 points.
This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.
The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.
The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.
It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.
Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.
And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)
Is he describing you, Correll?
Yes, very much so.
HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.
His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.
And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.
Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?
Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.
Less than one percent.
That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.
That they are allowed and even encouraged to actively pursue their interests was the whole of my point.
Thanks for agreeing.
As to why, blacks, back then in 1909, faced real discrimination, both legal and informal.
Why do you ask?
I ask because you seem to draw a parallel between your "struggle" and that of blacks.
Do you believe whites are now marginalized in the way blacks were to the point of needing a similar advocacy organization? That's what you seem to be saying.
Well, don't get lost in the details.
My point is that Whites, as a group, have interests and do not actively pursue them, and indeed, the normal response is any white even suggest doing so, they are generally shouted down as "racist".
I do not think that a National Association for the Advancement of White People is so much needed, as simply a breaking of the Taboo of speaking of Whites as a Group like every other, that has interests and is expected to protect and pursue them.
I wonder why they're shouted down as racist. Could there be historical precident supporting that view?
No. The purpose is to shut down serious debate on real issues.
That is what the Race Card is.
It is a form of Propaganda.
My point on White Interests stands.
No sir. It is you who is plainly playing the race card. You play it casually and often. You play it as if there isn't hundreds of years of baggage attached to it. The truth is that
" white interest " is the same as it always was. It may be under the surface now but it remains unchanged. The only thing you have lost as a white man is the ability to be an unfettered bigot in public. Cry me a fucking river.
I don't care what Whites have done in he past, fuck your White guilt
It's not about white guilt it's about truth. Are you really that immature and insecure that you can't handle it without feeling it's an indictment of you personally? In my experience, its only people who feel that whites are superior who can't handle this truth.
The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him.The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was. That was well after he won that state election. GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past. Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past. Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South? Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.
I will be happy to do so again.
Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.
The Power of Race
"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997
Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"
As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.
Browns get only 130 points.
This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.
The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.
The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.
It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.
Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.
And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)
Is he describing you, Correll?
Yes, very much so.
HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.
His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.
And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.
Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?
Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.
Less than one percent.
That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.
You cannot show the great majority of whites feel indicted or smeared. However, you do personally, and that must be because you feel threatened.I don't care what Whites have done in he past, fuck your White guilt
It's not about white guilt it's about truth. Are you really that immature and insecure that you can't handle it without feeling it's an indictment of you personally? In my experience, its only people who feel that whites are superior who can't handle this truth.
MOron. You ARE USING THE PAST TO PERSONALLY INDICT WHITE PEOPLE TODAY. You are using it to dismiss any complaints about anti-white discrimination. You are using it to smear modern whites.
You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.
And you didn't answer any of my questions.
WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?
We don't need the whole thread, we only need
Correll: "I have posted a link to a academic study documenting a widespread example of anti-white discrimination."
The study pointed out that it was not conclusive and that certain interests would take it out of context for their own purposes.
And that is what Correll has done.
You cannot show the great majority of whites feel indicted or smeared. However, you do personally, and that must be because you feel threatened.I don't care what Whites have done in he past, fuck your White guilt
It's not about white guilt it's about truth. Are you really that immature and insecure that you can't handle it without feeling it's an indictment of you personally? In my experience, its only people who feel that whites are superior who can't handle this truth.
MOron. You ARE USING THE PAST TO PERSONALLY INDICT WHITE PEOPLE TODAY. You are using it to dismiss any complaints about anti-white discrimination. You are using it to smear modern whites.
You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.
And you didn't answer any of my questions.
WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?
I posted where the study said that it would be taken out of context by people with agendas.
And that is you.
Your complaint, Correll, is not valid.
You feel threatened, while the great majority of whites do not demonstrate that we feel threatened, and there is no way that you could possibly prove any such thing.
So it's your burden, which the great majority of us will not allow you to put on us.
Yes, the GOP knew what was going on, and you can't prove your assertion at all that it did not. Your argument with Duke has been a loser from the get go.
I posted where the study said that it would be taken out of context by people with agendas.
And that is you.
Your complaint, Correll, is not valid.
You feel threatened, while the great majority of whites do not demonstrate that we feel threatened, and there is no way that you could possibly prove any such thing.
So it's your burden, which the great majority of us will not allow you to put on us.
You're saying the Democrats figured out how racist he is but Republicans couldn't until they elected him.Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.Correll argues that whites are discriminated against but does not show how with objective evidence. I think what he wants is a White Man's Civilization in the United States and is desperately unhappy that we don't.
I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.
I will be happy to do so again.
Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.
The Power of Race
"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997
Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"
As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.
Browns get only 130 points.
This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.
The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.
The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.
It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.
Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.
And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)
Is he describing you, Correll?
Yes, very much so.
HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.
His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.
And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.
Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?
Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.
Less than one percent.
That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.
The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.
That was well after he won that state election.
GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.
Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.
Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?
Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?
You're saying the Democrats figured out how racist he is but Republicans couldn't until they elected him.Nonsense. His background with the KKK was well known from years earlier. It was why Democrats rejected him in at least two elections. That was when he switched to the Republican party where he finally won one.I have repeatedly discussed the specifics with you in the past.
I will be happy to do so again.
Here is a one good example of the forces in play. Think of this as the tip of the Iceberg.
The Power of Race
"Advantages by Race and Class on the SAT and ACT at Selective Colleges, Fall 1997
Group Public Institutions (on ACT scale of 36) Private Institutions (on SAT scale of 1,600)
Race
--White -- --
--Black +3.8 +310
--Hispanic +0.3 +130
--Asian -3.4 -140"
As you can see, BLacks get a 310 point SAT bonus for having Blacks skin.
Browns get only 130 points.
This discrimination for limited numbers of admission slots means discrimination AGAINST whites who are competing for the same slots.
The push for diversity, and the desire to help "traditionally disadvantage" groups, AND the fear of lawsuits if their study body doesn't exactly match the demographics of the nation, is UNIVERSAL in our society.
The difference with University admissions is not that the motives for discrimination is greater, but that the documentation of how much discrimination is taking place is better.
It is odd that you have forgotten all the other times I have explained this.
Are you really that blind to information you don't like or were you being dishonest.
And in your dishonesty you fail to point out, from the link, that your conclusion is not sound because it reads "While Espenshade and Radford -- in the book and in interviews -- avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue, their findings almost certainly will be used both by supporters and critics of affirmative action to advance their arguments. (In fact, a talk Espenshade gave at a meeting earlier this year about some of the findings is already being cited by affirmative action critics, although in ways that he says don't exactly reflect his thinking.)
Is he describing you, Correll?
Yes, very much so.
HIs data shows the Affirmative Action is, as I said, anti-white discrimination.
His personal views are irrelevant, except as it is impressive that he did not allow his personal political views to prevent him from presenting his data and findings honestly.
And getting back to the point, his findings show the "objective evidence" you requested, especially as I pointed out, the motives for this discrimination is universal in our society.
Duke could win as a Republican, yes, when he could not win as a Democrat, yes?
Once his background in the Klan was well known and he tried running again he was humiliated.
Less than one percent.
That is what happens to actual real racists in the GOP.
The way I remember it, the National GOP was shocked when they started dealing with him and realized what he was.
That was well after he won that state election.
GHWBush repeatedly made the point that Duke was lying about his past.
Duke's story was that he was born again and had repudiated his racist past.
Why do you think he claimed to have repudiated his racist past?, Even running in the Deep South?
Why do you think that after the National Party publicly disavowed him and ran against him, and worked to widely spread information on his racist past that he lost and never won again, even in the Deep South?
His past affiliations with the KKK were well known.
You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.
And you didn't answer any of my questions.
WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?
Unsupported assertion.
My questions are not immaterial. YOu know that, that is why you are afraid to answer them.
Why did David Duke lie about being Born Again and repudiating his racist past while running for office in the Deep South?
Answer: Because even in the Deep South, as a former Klansman, he knew that to have any chance of winning he had to hide and/or lie about being a racist.
Once he was fully exposed he couldn't win anything. Last time he ran for National GOP office he got less than one percent.
That is the power of Racism in the GOP.
ANd that the Truth you cannot bring yourself to face.
For it would destroy your entire false world view.
You did not read carefully then. The National GOP knew exactly what Duke was and with whom they were dealing, so you are wrong. The GOP did the right thing after Duke's win and repudiated him. Your other questions are immaterial.NOt what I read at the time. National people who went down there to meet with him were shocked and reported back that we had a huge problem.
And you didn't answer any of my questions.
WHy did Duke claim to have been born again and to have repudiated his racist past? Even in the Deep South?
Unsupported assertion.
My questions are not immaterial. YOu know that, that is why you are afraid to answer them.
Why did David Duke lie about being Born Again and repudiating his racist past while running for office in the Deep South?
Answer: Because even in the Deep South, as a former Klansman, he knew that to have any chance of winning he had to hide and/or lie about being a racist.
Once he was fully exposed he couldn't win anything. Last time he ran for National GOP office he got less than one percent.
That is the power of Racism in the GOP.
ANd that the Truth you cannot bring yourself to face.
For it would destroy your entire false world view.
It's very dishonest to frame the GOP's contempt for Duke in 1992 by saying he got less than 1% nationally. The reality is, the GOP successfully kept his name off ballots in many states. While that still results in zero percent votes cast for him, you attempt to make it appear it was out of the voters rejecting him, when in fact, it was voters not given the choice to vote for him in such states.
And while I'm not arguing the right embraced him, they didn't; he received far more than 1% in the southern states when his name was included on the ballot.
Mississippi ..... 11%
Louisiana .......... 9%
S. Carolina ........ 7%
Republican Party presidential primaries, 1992 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
