If a justice of the peace tried to do this with me and my girlfriend I would be pressing racism and discrimination charges with the cops with the hour.While distasteful, I'm not sure racism is a crime. Where you can file complaints is when government offices or officials refuse or provide sub-standard service on the basis of "race, religion, gender or sexual orientation." I think a lot of companies that do business with the government have to agree to the same terms. Even then, though, I don't think it is technically "criminal." Nobody goes to jail for being a racist jacka**. It can be tagged on to other crimes at sentencing time, though, I think.
Plus, who says the cops don't agree with him? That's why the Federal government has to get involved. The office of civil rights that handles this stuff was pretty inert during the Bush administration - I think it file one case ... one the behalf of a White guy (Hey, I'm a White guy, and I know we can be discriminated against, but I find it hard to believe that the only act of racism that rose to the level of "criminal" in the previous 8 years was against one of my people).
I think it would be a human rights violation here in Canada. But your right, I would have to look into which agency it would be best to file with.
...That is probably true. But it is simple common sense that certain things should not be allowed...
Now wait a minute, we're talking about what's Legal and what isn't. Common sense and reason aren't necessarily part of the equation. :)
I had a friend growing up. I used to date his sister. They were African-American and her parents had no problem with her dating me, a white boy. He wanted to date an African-American girl and his parents had an absolute fit because she was too dark for them. I never understood that.
The skin color preference thing within an ethnicity? I've read somewhere about this popping up in East India and Brazil too, but I'd have to dig for some specifics.
BTW, I'm a Caucasin of German, Dutch, French, and Russian decent. Insert your own WWI/WWII & family tree joke here.
I also came across this article yesterday and found it headshakingly sad. It's a constant reminder, however, that even though we think we've progressed a lot since yesteryears (and we have), some things just are incredibly hard to get rid of (I, of course, include the Undead in this category).
On another note:
I find it to be a cultural thing. There was a lot of crap my ex and I went through being an interracial couple. And for the most part, from my own experiences, it seems that the african american community is more accepting of a black male-white woman than they are of a white-male-black woman couple. And it also seems more like a southern U.S. thing. And by that, I mean, states that are in the south of the U.S. Like California, Arizona, plus the traditional southern states.
This is clearly evident in all male dominated cultures. Take the middle eastern immigrant population (including up to 3rd and 4th generations) here in my country. You can easily find M.E. young men with Danish girlfriends, but M.E. women with Danish boyfriends are very, very, very, very few and far between. In some cases this is, unfortunately, because of threats of bodily harm to both parties (in the case of M.E. women and Danish men).
Yes that is true. But if you allow the undead to marry you will have to people pursuing them for debts accumulated during their lives. If reanimating magic or technology exits then financial ner-do-wells could just commit suicide and become debt-free.
How would you feel if the guy who swindled you out of money shuffles past you as a mouldering corpse while counting his loot and laughing at you?
Another question: Can the undead be forced to serve out prison sentences?
Finally, if you let the undead marry it will lead to all sorts of odious types asserting that they should be treated like everyone else. You know, like left-handed people.*
Derail commencing...
...what happens if they manage to revive those cryo-preserved people? Or if life expectancies get extended to even say 150 years? Or if a tech is developed to copy a mind & download it into a biological replacement... or a totally synthetic replacement?
Hopefully none of these will happen in 2012.
I had a friend growing up. I used to date his sister. They were African-American and her parents had no problem with her dating me, a white boy. He wanted to date an African-American girl and his parents had an absolute fit because she was too dark for them. I never understood that....I understand his sentiment about the interracial couple. It's sad, but it's true.It may be currently true. But that changes when people get more exposed to it, so they feel less threatened by it, and then the next generation grows up thinking nothing of it.
That's now you fight ignorance and racism.
There are some black folk who think subscribe to the idea that the lighter the skin the better. There are some black girls I knew in High School and then later on in college who would not date black guys because they eventually wanted to have light skinned babies.
Black people can be very, VERY messed up toward our own kind. As much crap as we take on a regular basis from outside the race, it's this kind of crap and things like the brown paper bag test that infuriates me and saddens me the most.
|
...That is probably true. But it is simple common sense that certain things should not be allowed...Now wait a minute, we're talking about what's Legal and what isn't. Common sense and reason aren't necessarily part of the equation. :)Yes that is true. But if you allow the undead to marry you will have to people pursuing them for debts accumulated during their lives. If reanimating magic or technology exits then financial ner-do-wells could just commit suicide and become debt-free.
How would you feel if the guy who swindled you out of money shuffles past you as a mouldering corpse while counting his loot and laughing at you?
Another question: Can the undead be forced to serve out prison sentences?
Finally, if you let the undead marry it will lead to all sorts of odious types asserting that they should be treated like everyone else. You know, like left-handed people.*
I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable with this line of conversation....
I'm starting to feel a bit uncomfortable with this line of conversation....
Don't worry. The AAZP has a strong lobbying arm; you probably have little to worry about.
You didn't hear it from me, but the vampires are in serious trouble. All these stupid vampire movies, books, and TV shows lately are too much; I think it was the horror of the sparkly Twilight sequels that finally pushed the Congresscritters over the edge.
And then the left-handed Poodles are next.
Set this sixty years back, and suddenly you'd have a large proportion of the populace supporting this judge.
Probably all the voting adults in the area. Up through the civil rights movement majorities of white Americans told pollsters that they thought the movement was a bunch of fringe radicals and most black people were perfectly happy with segregation.
A clarification: He is a Justice of the Peace, not a Judge. And as far as I can tell, he was elected (though JoP laws are different in every state), so yes he can be as racist as he wants. He, like anyone else, CAN refuse service.So it's OK if this JoP refuses to marry my hypothetical opposite-sex fiance and me, 'cause: "Well, you know, you Catholics aren't born-again, so any children you might have will go to Hell."? Or if we were Jewish: "Well, Jewish kids will get discriminated against in the South."?
I'm not condoning his actions, just like I don't condone people who don't serve blacks at their restaurant, but it is NOT illegal, you can refuse service to anyone. Should it be? Should we revoke the rights of people to refuse to serve lunch to a bunch of barechested foul mouthed bikers in a family restaurant, because some people use that same law as an excuse to discriminate?
But My point was merely to let people know it was NOT a judge (didn't work obviously) and to show that while immoral, it is not illegal, yet (again didn't work)
Set this sixty years back, and suddenly you'd have a large proportion of the populace supporting this judge.Probably all the voting adults in the area. Up through the civil rights movement majorities of white Americans told pollsters that they thought the movement was a bunch of fringe radicals and most black people were perfectly happy with segregation.
Well with people like Malcolm X supporting a fully segregated society, the whites had someone to point to and say "Hey see, they don't want to integrate."
I'm not condoning his actions, just like I don't condone people who don't serve blacks at their restaurant, but it is NOT illegal, you can refuse service to anyone.
Actually if you operate a public accommodation, such as a restaurant or hotel, you cannot refuse service based on race. If you operate a private members-only club, you can. It's under Title 2 of the Civil Rights act of 1964.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I find it to be a cultural thing. There was a lot of crap my ex and I went through being an interracial couple. And for the most part, from my own experiences, it seems that the african american community is more accepting of a black male-white woman than they are of a white-male-black woman couple.This is clearly evident in all male dominated cultures. Take the middle eastern immigrant population (including up to 3rd and 4th generations) here in my country. You can easily find M.E. young men with Danish girlfriends, but M.E. women with Danish boyfriends are very, very, very, very few and far between. In some cases this is, unfortunately, because of threats of bodily harm to both parties (in the case of M.E. women and Danish men).
While there's a certain element of patriarchy involved in this trend, a lot of it is also a result of centuries of colonialism. It is common in many areas where white Europeans used economic or social forces to oppress (generally darker skinned) natives. In the US, for example, there are many instances when slave women were exploited by their white male owners, but many, many fewer when white women sexually exploited their male slaves (partially because of the risk of "tainting the bloodline" were they to bear children). It goes back to (pardon the expression) the "rape and pillage" mentality of ancient conquests. Even in the last century you see elements of this, such as the large numbers of Vietnam vets who came home with southeast Asian wives. I'm not saying there's anything malevolent in the intentions of modern interracial couples in this regard, but there is a social meme that influences many cultures when looking at interracial relationships and how they relate to gender.
|
I had a friend growing up. I used to date his sister. They were African-American and her parents had no problem with her dating me, a white boy. He wanted to date an African-American girl and his parents had an absolute fit because she was too dark for them. I never understood that....I understand his sentiment about the interracial couple. It's sad, but it's true.It may be currently true. But that changes when people get more exposed to it, so they feel less threatened by it, and then the next generation grows up thinking nothing of it.
That's now you fight ignorance and racism.
There are some black folk who think subscribe to the idea that the lighter the skin the better. There are some black girls I knew in High School and then later on in college who would not date black guys because they eventually wanted to have light skinned babies.
Black people can be very, VERY messed up toward our own kind. As much crap as we take on a regular basis from outside the race, it's this kind of crap and things like the brown paper bag test that infuriates me and saddens me the most.
Spike Lee. School Daze. Whole movie about this phenomenon.
On a side note: I live in Houston (I know, kind of obvious), my sister lives here as well. She married a black dude, has three kids, and has never run into any problems. Of course, H-Town is a pretty diverse, enlightened place compared to a lot of places I've lived (Upstate New York, where I grew up, reminds me of the stereotypes about the South I've always heard, frankly), and you see couples of mixed ethnicity here all the time and no one even looks twice. I've dated women of all sorts of backgrounds, and never gotten weird look from anyone (well, other than the "what the heck is a hottie doing with that geek" type). So, generalizations based on geography, I think, are almost as bad as the subject of this thread.
Just saying...
Edit: ShinHakkaider, the side note has nothing to do with me quoting you, completely unrelated. Only the Spike Lee thing is relevant to your quote :)
I'm not condoning his actions, just like I don't condone people who don't serve blacks at their restaurant, but it is NOT illegal, you can refuse service to anyone. Should it be? Should we revoke the rights of people to refuse to serve lunch to a bunch of barechested foul mouthed bikers in a family restaurant, because some people use that same law as an excuse to discriminate?
Hold on now, why you want to be stereotyping bikers?
|
I'm just grateful that this kind of thing is getting rarer and rarer. The worst trouble I encontered when I first met my wife, and from our own families. It was solved for my inlaws when I said "I do", and for my own folks when they met their new granddaughter. Everyone else was just amazed that the geek got a girlfriend. I live in San Diego and from my experience, nobody here seem to care. Any time somebody has reacted, it was more out of naivete than malice.
I'm not condoning his actions, just like I don't condone people who don't serve blacks at their restaurant, but it is NOT illegal, you can refuse service to anyone. Should it be? Should we revoke the rights of people to refuse to serve lunch to a bunch of barechested foul mouthed bikers in a family restaurant, because some people use that same law as an excuse to discriminate?Hold on now, why you want to be stereotyping bikers?
Haha I'm not, that's why I didn't say just bikers I was referring to a very select group of bikers.
And Samnell yes you can, you aren't supposed to do it, and if it's proven you can get in trouble, but it's almost impossible to prove. Private clubs actually have a harder time at it, like the school club the kids tried to form in L.A. (I think) in a school full of African-American Club, Asian-American Club, Mexican-American club, they were denied opening a European-American Club. Country clubs, and other privates like that come under alot of fire, if they don't have their token black man out swinging a golf club.
|
|
Well, in terms of legality, the question would largely be about what this fellow's actual position was. Some people become a justice of the peace privately so they can marry folks as little more than a hobby. Technically, they can officiate as many or as little ceremonies as they like, and he might be able to get away with it.
But from my reading of the article, it looks like he holds a more substantial public position, or is perhaps a public employee. If he is performing weddings at the behest of some government agency, then it is pretty illegal. I wish I knew a little bit more about his situation.
And Samnell yes you can, you aren't supposed to do it, and if it's proven you can get in trouble, but it's almost impossible to prove.
So you admit that it is in fact illegal. Ok, that was my goal.
I'm not condoning his actions, just like I don't condone people who don't serve blacks at their restaurant, but it is NOT illegal, you can refuse service to anyone. Should it be? Should we revoke the rights of people to refuse to serve lunch to a bunch of barechested foul mouthed bikers in a family restaurant, because some people use that same law as an excuse to discriminate?Hold on now, why you want to be stereotyping bikers?Haha I'm not, that's why I didn't say just bikers I was referring to a very select group of bikers.
And Samnell yes you can, you aren't supposed to do it, and if it's proven you can get in trouble, but it's almost impossible to prove. Private clubs actually have a harder time at it, like the school club the kids tried to form in L.A. (I think) in a school full of African-American Club, Asian-American Club, Mexican-American club, they were denied opening a European-American Club. Country clubs, and other privates like that come under alot of fire, if they don't have their token black man out swinging a golf club.
Heh, just pickin. I've actually been on rides where I've met guys embarrassingly like that. Thankfully most of us have a little respect.
They've probably already had sex anyway.
One would hope so. I seriously don't get the whole "wait till marriage" before having sex, especially if one or both of them are virgins.
It's great that you might have very strong feelings for someone, but if you then find out after the wedding that you're just in no way compatible sexually... then what?There's a good reason why the saying goes, "good sex takes up around 10% in a relationship, bad sex takes up around 90%."
On the bright side, the online news video I saw on the incident reported the couple was married by another Justice of the Peace, either later that day or the next.
|
On the bright side, the online news video I saw on the incident reported the couple was married by another Justice of the Peace, either later that day or the next.
The one thing I don't get is this, and it may be a state by state thing. Here in Utah the judge/justice of the peace doesn't issue a marriage licence. You pay your $15 at the county courthouse and the old lady behind the desk gives you the licence. Both people don't even have to be there. Then you take it to your preacher, the justice of the priest, or even Joe Billybob down the street if he has passed the test to perform weddings in the state, and you get married. So why did the judge have any say in the licence? Like I said it could be a matter of differing state laws, but it still doesn't make sense to me why the law would be that way.
My guess is he already has a collection of bi-racial porn.
Point
My guess is he already has a collection of bi-racial porn.
Don't we all, don't we all...
Being from the "traditional South," let me shed some illumination, at least from my own experiences growing up down here. Very very few people are actually racist, but many many people are prejudiced. And those two terms are miles apart.
When it comes to interracial marriages, a refusal of service is perhaps not an illegal act, but it sure is a stupid one, in my opinion.
However, those of you not really familiar with the South may be surprised to find how many folks are accepting of interracial marriages these days. You may also be surprised to find out just how vehemently opposed to it the Black population is. They really detest While folks "stealing their women."
Of course, there's similar sentiment expressed by Whites, but because they've been beaten up for so long for racism (real and imagined), they more often go out of their way to accept it.
Naturally, one will be able to find pockets of deep-seeded prejudice (and outright racism) in various places, but in my own experience, it's mostly just prejudicial stereotyping, which may not be kind-hearted but isn't illegal at all.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8
|
Being from the "traditional South," let me shed some illumination, at least from my own experiences growing up down here. Very very few people are actually racist, but many many people are prejudiced. And those two terms are miles apart.
What's the difference in your opinion?
Prejudiced = I don't like.
Racist = I wish to harm.
Prejudiced = I assume you are a certain way without cause or logical thought.
Racist = I will assure others think the same way.
In my experience, we ALL are prejudiced in some fashion--toward race, creed, height, weight, religion, nationality, eye color, tone of voice, freckles, car, house, neighborhood, choice of music, etc. These prejudices range from the serious to the silly, but most are simply a collection of real or imagined stereotypes we make based on experience, folklore, or assumptions.
Not many of us are truly racist, as that would imply we are going about trying to harm or deny benefits to people based on their differences.
Examples: I'm prejudiced against Muslims, due to a number of them being involved in trying to blow up my country. However, should I meet one, I will not do him harm or refuse him service; thus, I am not racist. I might call him a "raghead" out of prejudicial angst or even 'cause I'm just kidding around, but I would continue to do him good deeds.
I'm prejudiced against short women, due to my being above average height. I would much rather not stoop over to hug my wife, so I married someone of a comparable height. In this case, I actually acted on my prejudice, but you could hardly call me "racist."
I'm prejudiced against Blacks in certain neighborhoods of my town because--read this twice--they routinely display aggressive and unwholesome activities that, frankly, scare the daylights out of me. I am not racist because I drive wide around that area; on the contrary, I am protecting myself.
It is prejudicial to say "White Men Can't Jump" but it is racist to create a Black Chamber of Commerce. It is prejudicial to attend church where everyone is of the same color, but it is racist to form an AME church. It is prejudicial for Obama to say "typical White people" just as it is prejudicial for me to say "typical Black people." But, it is racist for people to vote for Obama on the misled notion that he's Black.
Hope that helps.
It is prejudicial to say "White Men Can't Jump" but it is racist to create a Black Chamber of Commerce. It is prejudicial to attend church where everyone is of the same color, but it is racist to form an AME church. It is prejudicial for Obama to say "typical White people" just as it is prejudicial for me to say "typical Black people." But, it is racist for people to vote for Obama on the misled notion...
THe Black Chamber of Commerce wasn't formed in a vacuum. I love it when people say that "black" organizations are racist vs. white folks. These are usually thesame people who deny that America is inherently a country run by predominately white folk. The financial and poltical power base is primarily run by white folk, DESPITE the fact that we have a bi-racial president in office.
I never hear these same people b~~&% and complain about Irish-American Organizations or Jewish Organizations which are also pretty exclusionary. It's always "the blacks". Heres an idea: maybe there's a black chamber of commerce because the white community (in it's many facets) don't want or don't really care or offer the same support to black owned businesses. So they formed their own chamber of commerce to cater to their community.
Maybe there's a AME because there is a documented history of racially segregated churches in this country and these churches are the CENTERS of their respective communities. Communities that white folk could give a crap about.
Also about voting for Obama. You know I wonder, I've been voting since Clinton ran the first time and I vote Democrat because even though they're a party full of wusses, at least they PRETEND to care about people other than white folk. All the times I voted Democrat as a great many other black people did for WHITE candidates we weren't racist. But because we vote for the Democratic candidate who happens to be black we're all racist towards white people? Is that your argument? Because the only way to really test that is to see if say the Republicans ran a black candidate and he pulls an overwhelmingly large percentage of black people. Then, THEN you might have a sliver of a point.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Wow, someone took their over-reaction meds this morning.
First, Thank you, Malachi Tarchannen, for that honest assessment of what you meant. It reminds me of a Walter Williams quote when he was guest hosting Rush once "I discriminated against every other woman, when I married my wife. I've offered to be non-discriminatory towards other women, but she says no."
Shin, chill. I don't think any of us care why you voted for President 0bama, but the fact remains that it has been used as a club the other direction enough (you didn't vote for the black guy? Raaaaaaccccciiiisssssttttt!) that it's safe to assume some did vote for him based on the colour of his skin, and not the (lack of) content of his character.
Personally, under free association, I don't care about the NAACP, the ADL, or anything like that. But some things I don't see the need for anymore. "Miss Black USA?" didn't Vanessa Williams show that's not needed? And I'm sure you're fine with the modern KKK, as long as they don't break laws then.
As to the original article... If the Justice has the strength of his beliefs, he won't play the victim when he's relieved of duty.
I should point out that I have NO love for organized religion of any kind, however I do respect the outreach work that the church does in their respective communities.
From AME's site:
"The African Methodist Episcopal Church has a unique and glorious history. It was unique in that it is the first major religious denomination in the Western World that had its origin over sociological and theological beliefs and differences. It rejected the negative theological interpretations which rendered persons of African descent second class citizens. Theirs was a theological declaration that God is God all the time and for every body. The church was born in protest against slavery - against dehumanization of African people, brought to the American continent as labor.
The Mission of the African Methodist Episcopal Church is to minister to the spiritual, intellectual, physical, emotional, and environmental needs of all people by spreading Christ's liberating gospel through word and deed. At every level of the Connection and in every local church, the African Methodist Episcopal Church shall engage in carrying out the spirit of the original Free African Society, out of which the AME Church evolved: that is, to seek out and save the lost, and serve the needy."
Listen it can be argued that we still live in a racially segregated society and that it's only under the veneer of civility that we pretend otherwise. But The poster up-thread is basically saying that any support for a localized community (black, Jewish, Italian) that is not being met by the mainstream is racist. The mainstream is pretty much overwhelmingly white in this country, the demographic might be slowly changing but right now and for the foreseeable future? White. The Post racial america that people talked about as we can see is utter GARBAGE.
I work in Corporate America so I see how it works every damn day. I work in an office with about 250 employees. Outside of the mailroom (which is outsourced to Canon) there are about 5 black men who work here. I'm one of them. (I don't count black women in this number because they are not commonly perceived as a threat to white male power structure. Not because they are black but because they are women. Now being married to a black woman with two post graduate degrees, I can tell you that not considering them a threat is a REALLY BAD IDEA.) Now you can work and put in the hours and do everything that's required of you and more but unless you're IN with the "boys" you're only going to get so far. Now that's true with any one white or black or latino or asian, but it's going to be especially hard for black males because of the common negative connotation that EVERYONE has toward us.
I have nothing to do with those undesirables that you avoid. I'M NOT THEM. But I get tarred with the same brush regardless and I've learned to accept that to a point. But to say that for a group of SUCCESSFUL black business men & women to get together and support one another where the mainstream wont and doesn't give a crap about them is racist?
AME takes care of it's community, once again a community that whites typically don't care or want to care about, but because it exists it's racist? I mean it's not like there wouldn't be an uproar if AME or all black churches ceased to exist and their partitioners started to flood into white churches. I'm pretty sure there would be cries of "Forced Desegregation" and "we should be allowed to worship in our own way!" and all the other crap good, God fearing people would use to make sure there were no darkies in their church. The kicker would be if these former partitioners didn't go to church they'd be labeled "Godless heathens".
AWESOME.
Wow, someone took their over-reaction meds this morning.
First, Thank you, Malachi Tarchannen, for that honest assessment of what you meant. It reminds me of a Walter Williams quote when he was guest hosting Rush once "I discriminated against every other woman, when I married my wife. I've offered to be non-discriminatory towards other women, but she says no."
Shin, chill. I don't think any of us care why you voted for President 0bama, but the fact remains that it has been used as a club the other direction enough (you didn't vote for the black guy? Raaaaaaccccciiiisssssttttt!) that it's safe to assume some did vote for him based on the colour of his skin, and not the (lack of) content of his character.
Personally, under free association, I don't care about the NAACP, the ADL, or anything like that. But some things I don't see the need for anymore. "Miss Black USA?" didn't Vanessa Williams show that's not needed? And I'm sure you're fine with the modern KKK, as long as they don't break laws then.
As to the original article... If the Justice has the strength of his beliefs, he won't play the victim when he's relieved of duty.
Wait. You just compared Ms.Black USA to the Klan?
The Klan wants to rid this country of me my 7 year old my wife and everyone who even remotely looks like me or at least make sure that we don't have the same opportunities that you might have in terms of financial and poltical power.
and the threat to you and other well meaning white people by Ms Black USA is what exactly?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, it's always nice when some one falls into my trap.
I was very specific about seperating the klan's rhetoric from their actions. Bobby 'Sheets' Byrd aside, the Klan is a fringe group with little power, but, under this republic that I (and I assume you) live in, they have the right to spout their bile. It's a right that David Duke and Louis Farrikhan share. So you're saying that a group that gets together to promote segregation is bad, but a group that gets together to promote only having contestants of one colour is good in the same arguement. Thank you.
I have nothing to 'fear' from Miss Black USA. I just find it amusing that it is a beauty contest 'just' for black folks, like none have ever won Miss America.
Ah, it's always nice when some one falls into my trap.
So, there's no way to have an honest, open discussion about real issues? You're more interested in "out-clever"ing the "other side?" I hope that's not really the case.
Shin, thank you for your perspective. It reminds me a lot of being a non-Christian Yankee in many parts of the South.
|
|
I'm probably going to regret this, but I have to speak my mind here.
People can create whatever types of distinctions they want about what defines "racism", "prejudice", or whatever other label they want to slap on it.
It doesn't change the fact that any behavior that demeans, insults, or belittles people, or denies them rights or fair treatment, on account of their race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or whatever, is destructive to society. Nobody wants that sort of thing directed at them from any side.
Do individuals have the right to hold and share whatever beliefs they want? Absolutely. Should people who think that's wrong call them out on it? Absolutely.
It doesn't matter whether it's active, or violent, or institutional. People who support fairness and who don't think the color of a person's skin should determine their place in society have a responsibility to call out anyone who is taking racist, discriminatory, or prejudicial positions.
Maybe nobody is perfect, but that doesn't mean we should stop trying.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Ah, it's always nice when some one falls into my trap.So, there's no way to have an honest, open discussion about real issues? You're more interested in "out-clever"ing the "other side?" Hell with that.
Shin, thank you for your perspective. It reminds me a lot of being a non-Christian Yankee in many parts of the South.
I'd think you'd know me better than that Kirth.
I put my own beliefs in the disclaimer in my first post. I also would appriciate honest, open discussion. That kind of fell apart when Shin posted.
I also said that I assumed Shin was ok with the Klan. After all, it 'takes care of its community' and it is a 'community that whites mostly don't care or want to care about'. (funny how it's fine to lump all the 'white folks' into that statement)
Since the company I work for (since Shin brought in work, and his own beliefs that he'll never get anywhere) has a black CEO, we've had a black sec of state, and now a black president, I stand corrected.
When he says:
"Now you can work and put in the hours and do everything that's required of you and more but unless you're IN with the "boys" you're only going to get so far. Now that's true with any one white or black or latino or asian, but it's going to be especially hard for black males because of the common negative connotation that EVERYONE has toward us. " It's pretty clear that he's not in this country.
That's the problem, the Democrats make a good show of going to various minority groups and telling them "It's us or the Republicans", meanwhile they're elected to Congress or the Oval Office and do pretty much squat when it comes to delivery. The Gay/Lesbian advocacy groups can give you an earful about Obama and Clinton in that regard. The problem is that the progressives need to give the Democrats a real demonstration that they can't simply be taken for granted by backing an Independent candidate, worse case scenario, the Democrats get another lesson of living on the outskirts of power.
Also about voting for Obama. You know I wonder, I've been voting since Clinton ran the first time and I vote Democrat because even though they're a party full of wusses, at least they PRETEND to care about people other than white folk. All the times I voted Democrat as a great many other black people did for WHITE candidates we weren't racist. But because we vote for the Democratic candidate who happens to be black we're all racist towards white people? Is that your argument? Because the only way to really test that is to see if...
Agreed. But where will they go? The republicans thanks to the religious right isn't exactly what you'd call friendly to gays & lesbians. And as much friction as there would be between the rank and file Republicans and gays, you would have to multiply that by tenfold in regard to the republicans and black folk.