Protestors Demand Black-Only School

[Hugh Lincoln]

Shut down meeting...

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/11/supporters_of_b.php

[avatar4321]

You know, i could have sworn they found segregation specifically so they weren't segregated.

[Yurt]

Of course, only white males are forbidden from being homogeneous.

We have women only health clubs, in fact two in the area I live. But, if a club were to be "men" only, it would cause an uproar.

Likewise, a club can be black only and that is ok. I mean, we can have black "focused" universities.

If white "racism" is bad, why is black ok? If it really is about correcting a past wrong, why is it right to use the same wrong to make it "right?"

[pegwinn]

Of course, only white males are forbidden from being homogeneous. Hey, Hey, watch who your calling homo-anything dude.

We have women only health clubs, in fact two in the area I live. But, if a club were to be "men" only, it would cause an uproar. If it were men only I would not go to it. I prefer to have hardbodied women breaking a sweat in my vicinity. That's part of the fun of going to the gym instead of sweating in the garage. What I want is a gym that bans fat people wearing spandex and sweating.

Likewise, a club can be black only and that is ok. I mean, we can have black "focused" universities. That isn't racist, it's cultural. Didn't you get the memo?

If white "racism" is bad, why is black ok? If it really is about correcting a past wrong, why is it right to use the same wrong to make it "right?"
There are weak minded people who feel some sort of responsibility or latent guilt. Problem is, many are either elected or appointed to positions of power.


:)

[mrg666]

Of course, only white males are forbidden from being homogeneous.

We have women only health clubs, in fact two in the area I live. But, if a club were to be "men" only, it would cause an uproar.

Likewise, a club can be black only and that is ok. I mean, we can have black "focused" universities.

If white "racism" is bad, why is black ok? If it really is about correcting a past wrong, why is it right to use the same wrong to make it "right?"

that actually makes a lot of sense :clap:

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



Of course, only white males are forbidden from being homogeneous.

We have women only health clubs, in fact two in the area I live. But, if a club were to be "men" only, it would cause an uproar.

Likewise, a club can be black only and that is ok. I mean, we can have black "focused" universities.

If white "racism" is bad, why is black ok? If it really is about correcting a past wrong, why is it right to use the same wrong to make it "right?"



1. But what you have learned from *THE GREAT CWN* is starting to sink in.
2. There just may be hope for you after all.
3. Consider my thread about the hypocrisy of blacks again.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Yurt]

I didn't learn anything from you. If you have to beat your narcissistic chest, do it in private.

[manu1959]

I didn't learn anything from you. If you have to beat your narcissistic chest, do it in private.

that ain't his chest he is beating....

[Classact]

that ain't his chest he is beating....What everyone is saying is that diversity sucks!

Amsterdam will be pure Muslim in twenty years so diversity sucks! If you are not like me leave, get away from me, diversity sucks! I can only progress if everyone thinks like me, diversity sucks!

I think immigration should return to white only immigrants and limit all foreign students until we can limit our diversity management to black and white... get that fixed and then think of Mexican and and foreign students.

[Nukeman]

What everyone is saying is that diversity sucks!

Amsterdam will be pure Muslim in twenty years so diversity sucks! If you are not like me leave, get away from me, diversity sucks! I can only progress if everyone thinks like me, diversity sucks!

I think immigration should return to white only immigrants and limit all foreign students until we can limit our diversity management to black and white... get that fixed and then think of Mexican and and foreign students.


No I dont think that is what everyone is saying. Diversity as a whole is great, it allows you to see how others live their lives and gives you another perspective on life.

What your failing to understand is that you can not sit there and scream "I want in your club but you cant come into mine" Double standards are a crock.

No one has called for a ceasation of immigration or for "only whites", quite the contrary they are calling for white inclusion and enough of the everyone invited to the party except for "whitey" because you know his great great great great grandfather MAY have done something wrong to mine.

Get a life and get that double standard chip off your shoulder!!!!!

[pegwinn]

On the topic of racism:

It takes a genuine nutjob, inbred with a special kind of stupid, to actually be a bonafide racist.

I'm not using a dictionary to define this person. A real racist is a person who honestly believes that ___________ are better than ____________ in the same way that a 2006 Computer is better than a 1984 Computer. They believe that genetically they are superior. These are the folks that cannot simply take a HS biology class and realize that characteristics = gene pool + environment + evolution over time to adapt to that environment.

IF you really and truly want to study racism, where should you go? LA, as in Lower Alabama? Nah. How about Nazi Germany? Nah. The place to go today is Hawaii.

Native Hawaiians, which is largely a misnomer much as native Americans, tend to either love you or hate you. Not much middle ground. If you are in the US Military then you are really not overly liked by the native sovereignty movement.

So, a white US Marine gets to walk in a black mans boots. If he is on the island long enough he will hear the epithet "Fuckin Haole" tossed his way. He will find himself in danger if he's at the wrong beach after dark. He may be wandering around a town after a few beers and get offered a ride to base by a car full of Samoan descended "natives" who will drive him twenty miles from base and then pound him. Why? Because he has the wrong skin color.

A Black US Marine will get a similar education from the white guys perspective. He will hear all about how the Marines came ashore in 18?? and basically took the island and held it after deposing the royal family. It's his fault since he is also a Marine. He will see and hear the sovereignty protests against the US Military and US Government. Eventually if he is honest, he'll get pissed off and say "I didn't do it, so leave me the fuck alone." Or words to that effect.

I have had both black and white Marines under me who didn't totally get the prejudices PT'd out of them in bootcamp. In Hawaii I got to see those attitudes get adjusted without any of Uncle Sams sensitivity training.

Today's racial tensions are more about environment and individual actions that lend themselves to stereotyping. But, hey, don't anyone let that stop them, after all....

Stereotypes are a real time saver, no braincells required.

Thought about changing my tagline to "will post for money", then realised that I think the contest is over. Ah well.

[Hugh Lincoln]

A real racist is a person who honestly believes that ___________ are better than ____________ in the same way that a 2006 Computer is better than a 1984 Computer.

So you believe that blacks are no different from whites?

[pegwinn]

So you believe that blacks are no different from whites?

Did I say that? Hang on a sec and let me check........

Ah..... Nope, didn't say that. I try to be real specific on MB's. With me there is no reading between the lines or hidden messages. Just read what I actually wrote and the discussion can go forward.

Question: Do you believe blacks are different from whites? If so, how so?

[Kathianne]

I didn't learn anything from you. If you have to beat your narcissistic chest, do it in private.

Agreed, and keep it in the cage, please don't derail threads. Not to Yurt, but you knew that!

[Kathianne]

I love diversity. I've not a problem with immigrants that are legal. None. I think they add to our country; in language, foods, style, etc. If it weren't for the diversity of our country, we'd be the Europe of old. Problem for Europe, they set no parameters, without the space.

The US could afford for more than 100 years to set no boundaries, but then the West was won and they all came. From the East coast, Middle West, China, Japan, Australia, etc. Then it became more crowded. We needed to set limits, so that we could have 'Elbow Room.'

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/twFs9Vk6F0A&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/twFs9Vk6F0A&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Hugh Lincoln]

Question: Do you believe blacks are different from whites? If so, how so?

Yes. They are generally less intelligent, generally less law-abiding, generally more prone to sudden physical violence, generally less likely to plan for the future, generally less likely to maintain stable family relationships, and generally less likely to work hard and apply themselves to solving problems. They have less attractive physical appearances, as well.

[Yurt]

Yes. They are generally less intelligent, generally less law-abiding, generally more prone to sudden physical violence, generally less likely to plan for the future, generally less likely to maintain stable family relationships, and generally less likely to work hard and apply themselves to solving problems. They have less attractive physical appearances, as well.

what exactly does "generally" mean? I back up most of your issues regarding the disparate treatment of whites (especially male) versus non "whites" in the media, courtroom whatnot. but to say that you base your opinion of a particular group of people on "generally" supposed ideas is lacking in superior intellectual thought.

how exactly how "white" people superior to those of different pigment? what about mixed people?

[Hugh Lincoln]

what exactly does "generally" mean?

Just that -- statistics show as much. Blacks commit crime at levels far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. They score lower on IQ tests by an average of 15 points, and have since WWI. And so on. None of this is up for debate... what's debated is WHY that is. Liberals say it's white racism. Conservatives say it's black behavior. I say it's genetic. As support for that, read The Bell Curve, for starters, followed by Why Race Matters by Michael Levin, followed by anything by Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton. On the Internet, try Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor.

As Levin notes in his book, by the standards most people accept, whites are indeed superior people.

[Yurt]

Just that -- statistics show as much. Blacks commit crime at levels far out of proportion to their percentage of the population. They score lower on IQ tests by an average of 15 points, and have since WWI. And so on. None of this is up for debate... what's debated is WHY that is. Liberals say it's white racism. Conservatives say it's black behavior. I say it's genetic. As support for that, read The Bell Curve, for starters, followed by Why Race Matters by Michael Levin, followed by anything by Richard Lynn and J. Philippe Rushton. On the Internet, try Steve Sailer and Jared Taylor.

As Levin notes in his book, by the standards most people accept, whites are indeed superior people.

Why don't you post some excerpts from the books? I am not going to walk to B&N tonight, did that last night. Tx.

Do you believe in creationism? E.g., Adam and Eve?

If we follow your line of thinking, does blood matter? The saying that all blood is red? Of course that could akin to saying "what does your 'heart' say?"

Is not also true, that since you only speak generally, that it is also a truism that some blacks have excelled, in that, they have become "equal" in your eyes to whites?

How did this happen?

[pegwinn]

Yes. They are generally less intelligent, generally less law-abiding, generally more prone to sudden physical violence, generally less likely to plan for the future, generally less likely to maintain stable family relationships, and generally less likely to work hard and apply themselves to solving problems. They have less attractive physical appearances, as well.

You just described the folks who appear most often on Jerry Springer. And, come to think of it, rednex also fit the bill. So, does it logically follow that JS participants and rednex are the same as blacks?

I'm afraid that "generally" just doesn't get it for me. Every thing you listed can be attributed to environment. Do you have any scientific evidence that points to a non-environmental reason for the traits you listed?

[Hugh Lincoln]

You just described the folks who appear most often on Jerry Springer. And, come to think of it, rednex also fit the bill. So, does it logically follow that JS participants and rednex are the same as blacks?

I'm afraid that "generally" just doesn't get it for me. Every thing you listed can be attributed to environment. Do you have any scientific evidence that points to a non-environmental reason for the traits you listed?

Do you think that "environment" accounts for the fact that if two Asians procreate, the baby will be Asian? Or do you think that given the right "environment," the baby will be black?

The inheritability of traits is just not all that controversial, really. Nor is the fact that they travel with racial groups. There is no big debate in America over the fact that black parents are likely to have black children. The debate is whether intelligence is inherited. The evidence for that is legion. Try reading Race: The Reality of Human Difference, by Sarich and Miele. It's got a wealth of evidence on these points. The NYT has been covering this, lately, too.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/books/01race.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

James Watson predicts that in about 10 years, they will have isolated the genes for intelligence. He does not believe they will be found to be evenly distributed throughout the races. At that point, the debate will be over. The liberal belief that "environment" causes everything, from character to smarts and so on, will be destroyed. That's what I think is so funny about advances in science: liberals need to watch out, because much of what we're seeing isn't going to back up their world view. Meanwhile, conservatives often don't believe in science and prefer religion, but they'll find their worldview vindicated. Crazy, eh?

[pegwinn]

Do you think that "environment" accounts for the fact that if two Asians procreate, the baby will be Asian? Or do you think that given the right "environment," the baby will be black? Not at all. Physical Characteristics are genetic. And I will even stipulate that baseline learning ability (not intelligence as most perceive it) has a basis in physical development of the brain. So, you can streaaaaatch it out to say that intelligence is inherited. You'd be exaggerating I think.......

The inheritability of traits is just not all that controversial, really. Nor is the fact that they travel with racial groups. There is no big debate in America over the fact that black parents are likely to have black children. The debate is whether intelligence is inherited. The evidence for that is legion. Try reading Race: The Reality of Human Difference, by Sarich and Miele. It's got a wealth of evidence on these points. The NYT has been covering this, lately, too. As above, no argument to physical characteristics. As to intelligence, I will only walk partway down that path at this time. Intelligence is at least as much a product of environment as genetics. I could have great genes for bodybuilding. But tis all for naught if I never enter a gym.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/01/books/01race.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

James Watson predicts that in about 10 years, they will have isolated the genes for intelligence. He does not believe they will be found to be evenly distributed throughout the races. At that point, the debate will be over. The liberal belief that "environment" causes everything, from character to smarts and so on, will be destroyed. I really hope that you are not lumping me in with Liberals or Conservatives. I am one of those folks that forms, holds, and is responsible for my own opinions and thier defense. That's what I think is so funny about advances in science: liberals need to watch out, because much of what we're seeing isn't going to back up their world view. Meanwhile, conservatives often don't believe in science and prefer religion, but they'll find their worldview vindicated. Crazy, eh?

So, rednex and the folks chanting "JERRY, JERRY, JERRY" are uh.... genetically challenged? Great, another damn special interest group that will ask for handouts and special treatment.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I think the belief in racial difference is hard to adopt, because it conflicts with so much of what we're told: we're all equal, we all have equal rights, etc. It's not a popular belief or an easy belief. It sure doesn't make you feel good to believe it. But that doesn't mean it's not true. Otherwise, there would be no reason for you not to move to Haiti on the expectation that it will turn into a rich nation overnight. After all, all they need is some "good values," right?

[pegwinn]

I think the belief in racial difference is hard to adopt, because it conflicts with so much of what we're told: we're all equal, we all have equal rights, etc. It's not a popular belief or an easy belief. It sure doesn't make you feel good to believe it. But that doesn't mean it's not true. Otherwise, there would be no reason for you not to move to Haiti on the expectation that it will turn into a rich nation overnight. After all, all they need is some "good values," right?

Actually such a belief is the easy way to go IMO. After all, stereotypes are a great time saver. What is difficult is getting past the emotional aspect and actually looking beyond the actions of one person or groups. I don't like a lot of what I see, but I understand how it can come to pass. That doesn't in any way mean that I will take blame to assuage anyones need to be a victim. It does mean that in the area I control, I will not contribute to the observed factors.

As to Haiti, that is far more than just race. It's economics, it's infrastructure, it's leadership and politics, IOW's it's a mess and race is only a lil bit of it.

[Hugh Lincoln]

As to Haiti, that is far more than just race. It's economics, it's infrastructure, it's leadership and politics, IOW's it's a mess and race is only a lil bit of it.

But pegwinn, WHO is responsible for those "economics"? And infrastructure? And leadership? WHY do these things all seem to magically repeat themselves wherever blacks cluster, from D.C. to Nigeria? PEOPLE are responsible for all that, and here, it's BLACK PEOPLE.

[Hugh Lincoln]

Why don't you post some excerpts from the books? I am not going to walk to B&N tonight, did that last night. Tx.

Do you believe in creationism? E.g., Adam and Eve?

If we follow your line of thinking, does blood matter? The saying that all blood is red? Of course that could akin to saying "what does your 'heart' say?"

Is not also true, that since you only speak generally, that it is also a truism that some blacks have excelled, in that, they have become "equal" in your eyes to whites?

How did this happen?

A number of reasons: some blacks are smarter than some whites. Some are clearly more talented at, say, sports or music. But the fact that there are exceptions to a rule does not make the rule untrue.

As far as creationism, I believe in a God or "first cause" as they say, but also that evolution is at work in the world.

[trobinett]

But pegwinn, WHO is responsible for those "economics"? And infrastructure? And leadership? WHY do these things all seem to magically repeat themselves wherever blacks cluster, from D.C. to Nigeria? PEOPLE are responsible for all that, and here, it's BLACK PEOPLE.

ALL righteous questions pegwinn, why is the silence so deafening?

There are MANY, that will step forward to defend the folks of "color", but when the lights go out, and the piper steps up to be paid, who, pray tell, is found wanting?

Mr. Lincoln and I don't agree on much, but I'd be more than interested in finding out WHERE he is missing the mark on this one.

[pegwinn]

But pegwinn, WHO is responsible for those "economics"? And infrastructure? And leadership? WHY do these things all seem to magically repeat themselves wherever blacks cluster, from D.C. to Nigeria? PEOPLE are responsible for all that, and here, it's BLACK PEOPLE.

The same could be said for India, any of the 'stan countries, or mexico. Are you going to assert that they are all inferior? I read your NYT story. Even the scientists claim that the theory is in it's infancy.

Why is Jamaica a reasonably stable country that is low key and basically prospers? Could it be the ganja?

I bolded a part of your post that is correct in two points. First is historical, second is current in spite of the historical.

[Hugh Lincoln]

The same could be said for India, any of the 'stan countries, or mexico. Are you going to assert that they are all inferior? I read your NYT story. Even the scientists claim that the theory is in it's infancy.

Why is Jamaica a reasonably stable country that is low key and basically prospers? Could it be the ganja?

Hey, good questions... in India, there's a broad range of abilities, same as in Mexico, though much of the population is mid-to-low IQ.

An incredible book on this topic is IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Lynn and Vanhanen.

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm

These guys show how the correlation between a country's average IQ and its wealth is TIGHT. Japan ranks high, for instance, so it's hard to say that's a "white supremacist" idea. Just a fact.

I think use of the word "inferior" or "superior" makes the debate skewed. Technically, sure, we can use those words, but people give them a ring that sounds louder than needed, so if you say "whites are superior," it makes everyone wince.

[pegwinn]

ALL righteous questions pegwinn, why is the silence so deafening? Deafening? I dunno. Maybe others have discussed this before and don't feel the need to do it again. But, that is just speculation on my part.

There are MANY, that will step forward to defend the folks of "color", but when the lights go out, and the piper steps up to be paid, who, pray tell, is found wanting? Huh? Lost me there.

Mr. Lincoln and I don't agree on much, but I'd be more than interested in finding out WHERE he is missing the mark on this one. Continue reading the discussion then.

Sorry, missed this one the first time around.


Hey, good questions... in India, there's a broad range of abilities, same as in Mexico, though much of the population is mid-to-low IQ.

An incredible book on this topic is IQ and the Wealth of Nations, by Lynn and Vanhanen.

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/wealth_of_nations.htm

These guys show how the correlation between a country's average IQ and its wealth is TIGHT. Japan ranks high, for instance, so it's hard to say that's a "white supremacist" idea. Just a fact. I have no doubt that it is tight as hell. I believe it would almost prove that environmental considerations make the majority of the difference. One white guy is born into a well off, well adjusted, and active family. The other is born into a trailer part in LA (Lower Alabama) and drops out of high school. Both start with approximately the same Learning Potential. Who will score higher on a standardized IQ Test?

I think use of the word "inferior" or "superior" makes the debate skewed. Technically, sure, we can use those words, but people give them a ring that sounds louder than needed, so if you say "whites are superior," it makes everyone wince.

So then, you are not a racist according to the definition I provided. I don't have a problem with personal pride in culture or ancestry. I simply reject the notion that skin color alone is worth all the fuss.

[Pale Rider]

Sorry, missed this one the first time around.

So then, you are not a racist according to the definition I provided. I don't have a problem with personal pride in culture or ancestry. I simply reject the notion that skin color alone is worth all the fuss.

So do I, and that is why I personally am pissed off every time I'm confronted with evidence of the double standard towards blacks here in America. I think their day of special treatment is over. If they want equality, they've got it. Now they should shut the fuck up about black only this, or black only that. Otherwise I have an idea... how about a black only ticket back to Africa? Then they won't have to refer to themselves as "African Americans" anymore, and they'll have all the black only they can handle.

[Kathianne]

So do I, and that is why I personally am pissed off every time I'm confronted with evidence of the double standard towards blacks here in America. I think they're day of special treatment is over. If they want equality, they've got it. Now they should shut the fuck up about black only this, or black only that. Otherwise I have an idea... how about a black only ticket back to Africa? Then they won't have to refer to themselves as "African Americans" anymore either.

I'll agree with those that I often disagree with on one point, the only 'group' that cannot have exclusiveness is white males. Doesn't matter the venue or the age.

[Hugh Lincoln]

I'll agree with those that I often disagree with on one point, the only 'group' that cannot have exclusiveness is white males. Doesn't matter the venue or the age.

And us "racists" aren't the only ones to see that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

[Kathianne]

And us "racists" aren't the only ones to see that:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

See, this is the reason I just can't dislike WJ, only he would find a black man to back him up. Kudos and btw, you're both right!


White Guilt and the Western Past
Why is America so delicate with the enemy?

BY STEELE
Tuesday, May 2, 2006 12:01 a.m.

There is something rather odd in the way America has come to fight its wars since World War II.

For one thing, it is now unimaginable that we would use anything approaching the full measure of our military power (the nuclear option aside) in the wars we fight. And this seems only reasonable given the relative weakness of our Third World enemies in Vietnam and in the Middle East. But the fact is that we lost in Vietnam, and today, despite our vast power, we are only slogging along--if admirably--in Iraq against a hit-and-run insurgency that cannot stop us even as we seem unable to stop it. Yet no one--including, very likely, the insurgents themselves--believes that America lacks the raw power to defeat this insurgency if it wants to. So clearly it is America that determines the scale of this war. It is America, in fact, that fights so as to make a little room for an insurgency.

Certainly since Vietnam, America has increasingly practiced a policy of minimalism and restraint in war. And now this unacknowledged policy, which always makes a space for the enemy, has us in another long and rather passionless war against a weak enemy.

Why this new minimalism in war?

It began, I believe, in a late-20th-century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism: the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty. This idea had organized the entire world, divided up its resources, imposed the nation-state system across the globe, and delivered the majority of the world's population into servitude and oppression. After World War II, revolutions across the globe, from India to Algeria and from Indonesia to the American civil rights revolution, defeated the authority inherent in white supremacy, if not the idea itself. And this defeat exacted a price: the West was left stigmatized by its sins. Today, the white West--like Germany after the Nazi defeat--lives in a kind of secular penitence in which the slightest echo of past sins brings down withering condemnation. There is now a cloud over white skin where there once was unquestioned authority.

I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience but because people stigmatized with moral crimes--here racism and imperialism--lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not.

They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness. So when America--the greatest embodiment of Western power--goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus, in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.

The collapse of white supremacy--and the resulting white guilt--introduced a new mechanism of power into the world: stigmatization with the evil of the Western past. And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world. In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal. If a military victory makes us look like an imperialist nation bent on occupying and raping the resources of a poor brown nation, then victory would mean less because it would have no legitimacy. Europe would scorn. Conversely, if America suffered a military loss in Iraq but in so doing dispelled the imperialist stigma, the loss would be seen as a necessary sacrifice made to restore our nation's legitimacy. Europe's halls of internationalism would suddenly open to us.

Because dissociation from the racist and imperialist stigma is so tied to legitimacy in this age of white guilt, America's act of going to war can have legitimacy only if it seems to be an act of social work--something that uplifts and transforms the poor brown nation (thus dissociating us from the white exploitations of old). So our war effort in Iraq is shrouded in a new language of social work in which democracy is cast as an instrument of social transformation bringing new institutions, new relations between men and women, new ideas of individual autonomy, new and more open forms of education, new ways of overcoming poverty--war as the Great Society.

This does not mean that President Bush is insincere in his desire to bring democracy to Iraq, nor is it to say that democracy won't ultimately be socially transformative in Iraq. It's just that today the United States cannot go to war in the Third World simply to defeat a dangerous enemy....

and the East would never suffer like we have, to their own detriment, if they had such an opportunity.

[pegwinn]

So do I, and that is why I personally am pissed off every time I'm confronted with evidence of the double standard towards blacks here in America. I think their day of special treatment is over. If they want equality, they've got it. Now they should shut the fuck up about black only this, or black only that. Otherwise I have an idea... how about a black only ticket back to Africa? Then they won't have to refer to themselves as "African Americans" anymore, and they'll have all the black only they can handle.

I get really pissed off at any group that sets itself above the others at my expense. Like I said I don't get excited about skin color. If I was to pick a "group" that ticks me off the most it would be the "GBLT" (I think that's the initials) folks.