I think what's funnier is you're pretending that I don't find slavery and segregation absolutely awful. It's sad that you characterize all those who have differing opinions on AA as bigots who don't oppose atrocities such as segregation and slavery.

blacks love rasicm because it empowers them - as long as they have a race card to play they have power... people will not vote off a black person first becuase they will be called "racist", if you dont hire a black employee you will be called racist.. etc... there are alot of words that were derogatory but the groups they were used on have taken those words and they have no negative meaning now - eg... if you call a gay man a *** or a queer he will say "yup its true" and not be offended.."im here Im queer" no big deal...

I don't find anything wrong with this scholarship. The NAACP offers many of them to African-Americans.

What an incredibly asinine statement. If you can't carry on a discussion without implying I'm a racist, then I'll stop wasting my time with you.

Why should I have to come up with a solution you deem applicable? Why should I have to come up with any solution at all?

No. The post record shows how you certainly do not. Otherwise you would speak to what you feel should be done and should have been done to correct the imbalance made by the racist policies in the Slavery/Jim Crow Eras you merely pay lip service to when you call them "awful."


But you're obviously not opposed to Whites keeping the proceeds, benefits and "freebies" gained from "race-based" legislation.



Please do steer your remarks to things that I have actually said. I have no reason to "realize" something that has nothing to do with what I have said. And the problem here is how you've been unable to make a compelling anti-AA argument and, in the process of trying, shown how you turn a blind eye to Whites benefitting from the racist proceeds of "race-based" policies past, not to mention how you can't even come close to showing how AA "takes opportunities away" from Whites, as you suggested when the Jian Li example and the other things I posted show how you just can't make that (your) argument.


You are not and cannot make a compelling argument with hypotheticals. Once again, the Jian Li example shows how he was "better" qualified than his White classmate but your consideration remains selective where you can only hypothesize (because you have few cases, if any, you can demonstrate using facts) about the opportunities of "deserving" Whites being "taken away."

Come with some facts. Not hypotheticals.


No. What's sad is how you don't want to play the INFERIORITY CARD anymore. What's sad is how you're so self-conscious that you dreamed that I said being anti-AA means you're racist. I made no such statement or equation here. But you suggested this UNBALANCED EQUATION that you obviously have no problems with:

* [WHITES] 184 DIRECT ASSISTANCE + 47 PARTIAL ASSISTANCE = [BLACKS] 47 PARTIAL ASSISTANCE


You're on record saying, directly or by default, that: It is/was okay for Whites to benefit off of racist, race-based WHITE ONLY policies.

You've still yet to speak to OFF-SETTING the "freebies" Whites accumulated during those 184 years from America Day 1 to 1960. It's sad that your frustrations are MISDIRECTED.

I'm certainly not the one "who ends up discriminating." I didn't draft the Civil Rights legislation nor did I form the AA policies America adopted. But you're the one who claimed he was against "race-based" policies and ended up demonstrating how you don't care one bit about "race-based" policies except for when Whites aren't the beneficiaries of them.

Now, tell me? Are WHITES INFERIOR? Seriously... Look at the "ASSISTANCE QUOTIENT":

* [WHITES] 184 DIRECT ASSISTANCE + 47 PARTIAL ASSISTANCE = [BLACKS] 47 PARTIAL ASSISTANCE


Answer please.

I never said or suggested whites were inferior, and I'm not going to waste my time throwing arguments at you until you deem one sufficient. Bye.

Who's saying you're a bigot?

My, you have such an inferiority complex if you're afraid of being one.

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

I didn't "imply" anything. I simply illustrated what your statements amounted to. You claimed to be against "race-based" legislation but you propose and have nothing to say about the RACIAL INEQUALITY that exists, in whole or in part, because Whites were/are able to keep the racist proceeds from the Slavery/Jim Crow Era.


Because you claimed you were against "race-based" legislation. If that were true then you would show how you're against the undeniable "race-based" legislations and social structure that existed during Slavery/Jim Crow by addressing the benefits, "freebies", etc. that Whites obviously accumulated from those eras which play a part in the wealth gap Ceci mentioned.

Instead of doing that, you made yourself out to be a fraud. Obviously, you are/were okay with that. Otherwise you wouldn't have said "the gap will close by itself." If you were truly against people getting opportunities, etc. "taken" from them then you would address what the race-based, racist legislation of the Slavery/Jim Crow eras "took away" from non-Whites.

But no. Your "close by itself" principle, by definition, is a choice of yours to leave that GRAND THEFT in-tact.


I can't help it if that's what you stated views indicate. Now, if your stated views make you are racist in your eyes then sobeit.

Xibit, although this was addressed to you, I would like to answer succinctly to Mr. I-I's inquiries:

Since when has there been a scale to measure which statement is more asinine or not?


[Folks, this is where the arrogance behind "false superiority" exists: the fear of being called a racist. You see, when there isn't an applicable solution to A-A, the only thing left is to use the "You think I'm a racist" card. After all, when cultural ignorance is at the surface, there is nothing left but to resort to stereotypes about non-white people that have been disproven.]


Then, why bother with Affirmative Action if you can't think of a solution?

[Folks, you see, this is another "freebie" demonstrated: the need to feel patently "self-righteous" despite the lack of information. Non-white people have always had to prove themselves when they give information in front of the dominant culture. But, whites have the "freebie" of saying whatever they want and have it taken on the fact that they are the "authority". But don't take it from me. This is residue from Jim Crow Ettiquette. ]

__________________
Ceci's News and Views Forum

Oh but your ASSISTANCE notion idea did. All I did was apply the ASSISTANCE QUOTIENT to the well-documented and overwhelming history of WHITE ASSISTANCE known as Slavery and Jim Crow.

Funny how you had no problems suggesting that Blacks are inferior:

Obviously you believe(d) WHITE ASSISTANCE was/is OKAY. So, using your equation, using your ASSISTANCE QUOTIENT, Whites must be or were INFERIOR based on the "assistance & freebies" they clamoured for in the way of WHITE ONLY, race-based policies during Slavery/Jim Crow.

And please make sure you get it right. I didn't say you said Whites are inferior. I clearly asked you if they were/are:

ANSWER PLEASE!


Also, you had no problem "implying" that Ceci believed Blacks, e.g., are inferior. Indeed, you said "the only way..." Well, turn-a-bout is fairplay.

THE ONLY WAY you can sit back and not actively stand against and insist that the accumulated "assistance" advantage White gained over more than a century (or two) of WHITE ONLY, race-based, racist policies be completely eliminated, erased or dismantled is if you believe Whites "deserved" and, therefore, needed that "assistance" and are entitled to it - the racist, race-based proceeds of Slavery/Jim Crow.

So, It-ICE.... Do you believe Whites were/are INFERIOR?


Look at the "ASSISTANCE QUOTIENT":

* [WHITES] 184 DIRECT ASSISTANCE + 47 PARTIAL ASSISTANCE = [BLACKS] 47 PARTIAL/DIRECT ASSISTANCE

There’s nothing wrong with whites only scholarship.