Texas group launches scholarship for white men ONLY... because they 'need an equal shot'

[Zero Sum 305]

How very wrong you are.

The politics are the same, just modernized.

The Democratic party has always done everything it can to stand against the African American community from succeedin. Why? So they can continue to make them empty promises in tricking them to vote for them. They have zero desire to bring them up in this world. Be it from the days of the KKK, to trying to block the civil rights act, to ongoing cradle to grave welfare. It's not about bringing them onpar, it's about keeping them down and maybe throwing them a bone from time to time so it appears like they are doing something.

Segregation is what keeps the Democratic party alive and well. It has for a very very long time now. As long as people are treated as minorities, then the longer they are going to be minorities.

Where am I mistaken?

Voting Southern Democrats that were KKK promptly switched their allegiance to the GOP after they failed to block the Civil Rights Act.

Those Democrats, now (see, don't confuse modern Democrats with the previous-GOP member Southern Democrat) that continue their old ways, sure have hidden their agenda behind the whole liberal dogma of equality (in access) for all. Are some benefiting from this conspiracy you 'speak of'? I couldn't doubt it because its unsubstantiated. That is your opinion, one that shouldn't be confused with fact.

[Dakine10 5,452]

Too young or not born yet.

This isn't 1960's Mississippi or Alabama for that matter.

I stand against racism in the Democratic party (the party of the KKK) every day of the week.

The question is, do you?

Why not just take a stand against racism? Why the need to qualify it? We know there were "southern Democrats" like Strom Thurmond who switched to the Republican Party because of the Democrat's support of the civil rights movement. You don't stand against them?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Where am I mistaken?

Voting Southern Democrats that were KKK promptly switched their allegiance to the GOP after they failed to block the Civil Rights Act.

Those Democrats, now (see, don't confuse modern Democrats with the previous-GOP member Southern Democrat) that continue their old ways, sure have hidden their agenda behind the whole liberal dogma of equality (in access) for all. Are some benefiting from this conspiracy you 'speak of'? I couldn't doubt it because its unsubstantiated. That is your opinion, one that shouldn't be confused with fact.

unsubtantiated?

That jerk of a Senate Majority leader gave it up easily, Obama doesn't have "Negro dialect."

What kind of person says that? The LEADER of the Democratic Party in the Senate!

The Democratic party has been and always will be about segregation of the groups.

Blacks, Latinos, Gays, etc... none of them are actual "Americans" to the Democratic party. They are sub-groups that only benefit the party if they are segregated in some way.

You have to be blind, dumb, or just flat out ignorant not to understand that.

[Zero Sum 305]

unsubtantiated?

That jerk of a Senate Majority leader gave it up easily, Obama doesn't have "Negro dialect."

What kind of person says that? The LEADER of the Democratic Party in the Senate!

The Democratic party has been and always will be about segregation of the groups.

Blacks, Latinos, Gays, etc... none of them are actual "Americans" to the Democratic party. They are sub-groups that only benefit the party if they are segregated in some way.

You have to be blind, dumb, or just flat out ignorant not to understand that.

Unsubstantiated in your claim of racism, yes. Prove your assertion. But thanks for the jab, it must have come from being incapable of substantiating your comment and trying to pass off an opinion as fact.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Unsubstantiated in your claim of racism, yes. Prove your assertion. But thanks for the jab, it must have come from being incapable of substantiating your comment and trying to pass off an opinion as fact.

Your argument is quite defensive because the idea bothers you too deeply that those you support are inherent racists. Perhaps not in their minds racist for many, but the leadership does enough to make sure they no one gets ahead in life who doesn't benefit them directly.

Do you think the Democratic party would have put Obama in the spotlight in 2004 if he had that 'negro dialect.' You know sure as hell they would not have. It wouldn't matter how educated he was/appeared to be or what his history was. Because he didn't sound 'black' though, they knew they could use this guy to push their cause.

Politics is a game of chess. Very strategic. It's a strategy of trying to get X people to believe something sronger than Y people and then hoping Z people don't see through your moves and knock over all of your pieces. The Democratic party cannot win on substance alone. That's why everything is about race, about class (eventhough corporations now give more to the Democratic party, Dems are wealthier, etc..), and about anything and everything that can make it look like that one group is trying to stomp on another group. All while doing the exact same thing themselves.

[Zero Sum 305]

Your argument is quite defensive because the idea bothers you too deeply that those you support are inherent racists. Perhaps not in their minds racist for many, but the leadership does enough to make sure they no one gets ahead in life who doesn't benefit them directly.

Do you think the Democratic party would have put Obama in the spotlight in 2004 if he had that 'negro dialect.' You know sure as hell they would not have. It wouldn't matter how educated he was/appeared to be or what his history was. Because he didn't sound 'black' though, they knew they could use this guy to push their cause.

Politics is a game of chess. Very strategic. It's a strategy of trying to get X people to believe something sronger than Y people and then hoping Z people don't see through your moves and knock over all of your pieces. The Democratic party cannot win on substance alone. That's why everything is about race, about class (eventhough corporations now give more to the Democratic party, Dems are wealthier, etc..), and about anything and everything that can make it look like that one group is trying to stomp on another group. All while doing the exact same thing themselves.

You continue making unsubstantiated and now flawed comments. Is this a regular thing with you? I would dare say yes.

I would suggest reading exactly what you have written in the quoted text above. Personal commentary aside, notice your generalized assumptions. These are not capable of being substantiated. Which means one of two things: 1) you bloviate this material ad-hominem because you have no ability to back up your claims with verifiable evidence or 2) you are confused about the circumstances in which your assumptions come out due to a problem in the way in which you interpret the evidence that you have observed. Or it could be both?

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You continue making unsubstantiated and now flawed comments. Is this a regular thing with you? I would dare say yes.

I would suggest reading exactly what you have written in the quoted text above. Personal commentary aside, notice your generalized assumptions. These are not capable of being substantiated. Which means one of two things: 1) you bloviate this material ad-hominem because you have no ability to back up your claims with verifiable evidence or 2) you are confused about the circumstances in which your assumptions come out due to a problem in the way in which you interpret the evidence that you have observed. Or it could be both?

I suppose your public education didn't teach you critical thinking skills?

I've given you examples. You choose to ignore them. Either that or you are so new to the political arena you haven't had the time to pay attention enough to what's happening around you.

[Zero Sum 305]

I suppose your public education didn't teach you critical thinking skills?

I've given you examples. You choose to ignore them. Either that or you are so new to the political arena you haven't had the time to pay attention enough to what's happening around you.

How can you substantiate the intent of Senator Reid? And even if you could (which you can't, and likely won't), why are you broadbrushing an entire political psychology with innately flawed reasoning? I know this might be hard to spot, but try again reading your own 'evidence.' Without getting so angry.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Imagine if someone of Obama's heritage would apply. According to that eligibility guideline, he would have to be considered.

History of black Americans and all 'aside' (although that can't be done so simply as some would have us believe), if this group wants attention, they'll get their 15 minutes and then be promptly forgotten just as many other organizations that are overreacting to some supposed conspiracy to make the white race in America a victim of numbers and circumstance via white guilt and blacks benefiting 'unfairly' from Affirmative Action. I would like to know where 'white guys' like these were during times of racial segregation and the discrimination that may well be intact in some sectors of the nation. After all, they want an equal chance for everyone, so they should be calling out racists of all colors.

Quite simply, the reason this group of 'white guys' has come up with the ####### described in the op is not because they are genuinely 'in need of an equal shot', they have done it for politically motivated reasons and they want publicity to start a debate based on false premises. A debate that a lot of 'white folks' on vj like to have from time to time. Whenever you read "if a black person had said that there would be uproar", you can rest assured that it's the same old hackneyed #######.

These people want to make out that they are somehow post-racial and they apply their farcical arguments by deliberately ignoring the history behind the things they are complaining about. How can there be a black history month but not a white history month, they might say? Apparently It's not because modern America is anything but post racial, or that recognising victimized groups because of past crime perpetrated by the majority. Rather it's (presumably) because black Americans are themselves deeply racist. That's the only reason they throw out that unanswered question, because they simply don't have the guts to come right out and say what they really think.

They would have you believe that there are no socioeconomic disparities between different racial/ethnic groups and so no targeted ssistance is needed.

Idiots.

[Zero Sum 305]

Its sad indeed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Quite simply, the reason this group of 'white guys' has come up with the ####### described in the op is not because they are genuinely 'in need of an equal shot', they have done it for politically motivated reasons and they want publicity to start a debate based on false premises. A debate that a lot of 'white folks' on vj like to have from time to time. Whenever you read "if a black person had said that there would be uproar", you can rest assured that it's the same old hackneyed #######.

These people want to make out that they are somehow post-racial and they apply their farcical arguments by deliberately ignoring the history behind the things they are complaining about. How can there be a black history month but not a white history month, they might say? Apparently It's not because modern America is anything but post racial, or that recognising victimized groups because of past crime perpetrated by the majority. Rather it's (presumably) because black Americans are themselves deeply racist. That's the only reason they throw out that unanswered question, because they simply don't have the guts to come right out and say what they really think.

They would have you believe that there are no socioeconomic disparities between different racial/ethnic groups and so no targeted ssistance is needed.

Idiots.

See here's where you lose your argument.

The black community has been kept down for decades now by so-called 'assistance.'

Don't you get it. If you beat it into someone's head that they cannot fend for themselves, that they need you to survive, that someone else is taking away their means to survive, then you create a cradle to grave dependence on a certain group of people. It's why the black community almost always votes for the Democratic party. Promise after promise. Government benefit after government benefit. Yet how many of those 'benefits' are aimed at getting them out of poverty, at helping them become educated, at getting them eventually off of those benefits?

You see, while it might be the wrong terminology to call it racism or bigotry what's been done with the black community, but it is downright cruel and what else can you call it? It's not like the people are incapable of taking care of themselves. There are plenty of educated/well-to-do people in that 'community,' and most want to have nothing to do with it either. The rest though are nothing but sheep for the slaughter and at the feet groveling to those who offer them up the slim rations and promise them even more each election cycle.

[Zero Sum 305]

The black community has been kept down for decades now by so-called 'assistance.'

This would probably make sense if you referred to specific elements within such a community.

For example, you make one kind of amorphous dissociation here:

There are plenty of educated/well-to-do people in that 'community,' and most want to have nothing to do with it either. The rest though are nothing but sheep for the slaughter and at the feet groveling to those who offer them up the slim rations and promise them even more each election cycle.

It still boggles the mind how such 'assistance', as you generalize every kind of possible program there is out there- designed most likely to assist the poor in general terms, not individual 'communities' of color, earns the distinction of 'intent' as racist within the context of self-perpetuating future voters.

If that were the logic within those [plenty of educated/well-to-do people in that 'community,' and most want to have nothing to do with it either], then it would imply they are also aware of such intent, and in disagreement with said conspiratorial practice, would vote against such political philosophy.

Yet 'they' do not.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

See here's where you lose your argument.

The black community has been kept down for decades now by so-called 'assistance.'

Don't you get it. If you beat it into someone's head that they cannot fend for themselves, that they need you to survive, that someone else is taking away their means to survive, then you create a cradle to grave dependence on a certain group of people. It's why the black community almost always votes for the Democratic party. Promise after promise. Government benefit after government benefit. Yet how many of those 'benefits' are aimed at getting them out of poverty, at helping them become educated, at getting them eventually off of those benefits?

You see, while it might be the wrong terminology to call it racism or bigotry what's been done with the black community, but it is downright cruel and what else can you call it? It's not like the people are incapable of taking care of themselves. There are plenty of educated/well-to-do people in that 'community,' and most want to have nothing to do with it either. The rest though are nothing but sheep for the slaughter and at the feet groveling to those who offer them up the slim rations and promise them even more each election cycle.

I don't believe anything about this is simple Paul - I'm just pointing out that trying to draw sensationalist conclusions from ####### peddled by these guys in Texas, deliberately ignore the reasons that those programmes for ethnic minorities exist in the first place.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

This would probably make sense if you referred to specific elements within such a community.

For example, you make one kind of amorphous dissociation here:

It still boggles the mind how such 'assistance', as you generalize every kind of possible program there is out there- designed most likely to assist the poor in general terms, not individual 'communities' of color, earns the distinction of 'intent' as racist within the context of self-perpetuating future voters.

If that were the logic within those [plenty of educated/well-to-do people in that 'community,' and most want to have nothing to do with it either], then it would imply they are also aware of such intent, and in disagreement with said conspiratorial practice, would vote against such political philosophy.

Yet 'they' do not.

Many do vote the opposite, however the mask of 'caring' for many eventhough they are outside of that realm still is there.

Human beings are easily bought and sold by ideas. Whether any truth comes from those ideas, it's easy for us to forget. Long term memory and politics is almost non-existant in many cases and that's what keeps many politicians in office for far longer than they possibly should be. This goes for both parties who have had members sitting there for decades in some cases. Empty promises or just enough rations to keep them coming back and asking for more.

Every society has been this way since the dawn of time. America was a unique experiment that has ultimately failed because at the end of the day, we are human and liberty is not something we are accustomed to as a species. We like to rule and we like to be ruled. It's a 'comfort' thing and those who try and be anything different than those two things are considered outcasts/rebels/blasphemers, etc.

That's why it's so easy to target individual groups and 'appear' to be helping their needs. If you put them all as 'one,' then there would be no reason for you to be 'needed' by them. A collectiv is very dangerous to the political atmosphere. If all were 'one' together, then accountability would be demanded even more so than it is now (which is very very miniscule now).

The human psyche is a very interesting and complicated thing.

[Zero Sum 305]

Many do vote the opposite, however the mask of 'caring' for many eventhough they are outside of that realm still is there.

Human beings are easily bought and sold by ideas. Whether any truth comes from those ideas, it's easy for us to forget. Long term memory and politics is almost non-existant in many cases and that's what keeps many politicians in office for far longer than they possibly should be. This goes for both parties who have had members sitting there for decades in some cases. Empty promises or just enough rations to keep them coming back and asking for more.

Every society has been this way since the dawn of time. America was a unique experiment that has ultimately failed because at the end of the day, we are human and liberty is not something we are accustomed to as a species. We like to rule and we like to be ruled. It's a 'comfort' thing and those who try and be anything different than those two things are considered outcasts/rebels/blasphemers, etc.

That's why it's so easy to target individual groups and 'appear' to be helping their needs. If you put them all as 'one,' then there would be no reason for you to be 'needed' by them. A collectiv is very dangerous to the political atmosphere. If all were 'one' together, then accountability would be demanded even more so than it is now (which is very very miniscule now).

The human psyche is a very interesting and complicated thing.

Indeed a very complicated thing.

I do find your comment

Every society has been this way since the dawn of time. America was a unique experiment that has ultimately failed because at the end of the day, we are human and liberty is not something we are accustomed to as a species. We like to rule and we like to be ruled. It's a 'comfort' thing and those who try and be anything different than those two things are considered outcasts/rebels/blasphemers, etc.

interesting.

Because if America is a failed experiment in establishing human liberty as something contrary to human nature, then it should be a foregone conclusion that resisting such change is not only impossible, but foolish. Not to mention asserting it at this point, particularly in this case of a clear history and consequence of racial inequality, with denial and mis-characterizations rife throughout. It seems your attempt at channeling Nietzsche in terms of human necessities as fact has once again shown that this is not indeed fact, but opinion.

My opinion tells me that is not the case. The American experiment is still very much alive, and equal opportunity is morphing on the nation's road to true post-racial status. We are not there yet, IMO, because both extremes overreach their logic to claim as much attention before being silenced by a much more tolerant majority.

Once we get over our denial of history, of consequence, and that a modern civilized society needs a structure to operate in fact and practice as it is written to do so on paper, we'll be better off.