Shocker, black people still get married today, you idiot.
So dumb he doesn’t notice his point is based on a racist trope.

Edit:Another shocker, after 1970, all racists became Republicans because Democrats began (slowly) working towards racial equality. This was known as the Southern Strategy and was how Republicans tried (and succeeded) in getting the Southern white vote. Bob likes to pretend this isn’t well known history because he knows it means his party is intentionally outrageously racist and that if you are a racist today you are right wing by definition.

For @bobknight33-
Equality - e·qual·i·ty
/əˈkwälədē/
noun
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.
"an organization aiming to promote racial equality"
synonyms: fairness, justness, equitability, impartiality, even-handedness, egalitarianism, equal rights, equal opportunities, nondiscrimination, justice, freedom, emancipation, coequality

It does not mean exact sameness, mirror image, clone, 50/50 split on everything, no difference, etc..... This is why it's important to know your own language, it helps you not be an imbecile.

You think that's maybe because it's the 17 year old who murdered two people and injured one shooting into a crowd?

Could it be because protesters are fighting for racial equality and an end to police murdering unarmed citizens because they're afraid of black people, and the militias are fighting against that and for the preservation of monuments to racism and racial superiority?

You think it might be because Trump and his cult are condoning and encouraging his vigilante murders as a one boy posse, jury, and executioner, but authorities have universally condemned rioting and arson?

You think it might be because Trump believers have been itching for an excuse to shoot some liberals for years, they haven't been quiet about it either, and it's clear they see the crumbling law and order under Trump as their chance to spark a culture/race/civil war, and are targeting antiracism protesters openly now, repeatedly and nation wide?

What do you think is the reason?

You stupid stupid dishonest stupid man. He renounced them for decades before the photo with Biden ('08?), starting in the 40's when he left the KKK after a few years in. Trump is currently being supported by the active KKK membership and leaders as well as multiple racist hate groups. He has not renounced them or said he doesn't want their votes, instead he claims he doesn't know who David Duke is despite having discussed him at length in prior interviews and calls them good people, his tough guys. Democrats have renounced the KKK and racists publicly for decades. Derp.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/kkk-trump-david-duke-tucker-carlson-election-2020-a9609491.html

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/03/trumps-david-duke-amnesia/

If Biden is the racist, why do open racists all support Trump?

🤦‍♂️

Robert Byrd served as U.S. Representative for the state of West Virginia from 1953 to 1959, and as a U.S. Senator from 1959, until his death in 2010 ( here ).

Byrd was not a Grand Wizard or leader of the Klan. He was, however, a former organizer and member of the KKK. A Washington Post article reviewing Byrd’s memoir explains these years in more detail. Byrd later renounced his membership to the organization, although his early record in Congress on race and civil rights was mixed. For example, Byrd partook in a lengthy filibuster effort against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, but supported the 1968 civil rights act . A Democrat but conservative in values, Byrd decades later also criticized President Bill Clinton’s decision to push for the legalization of gay marriage.

In a 2006 CNN interview, Byrd expressed regret for the filibuster and called his time in the Klan the greatest mistake of his life.
In 2005, Byrd commented on his past membership of the Klan in his memoir and in an interview with the Washington Post said, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times … and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."

During the 2008 presidential race, Byrd endorsed Barack Obama.

At the time of his death, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), a leading civil rights organization formed in 1909 for the advancement of racial equality and elimination of racial discrimination, issued a statement mourning his passing. The NAACP’s President and CEO remarked: "Senator Byrd reflects the transformative power of this nation. Senator Byrd went from being an active member of the KKK to a being a stalwart supporter of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act and many other pieces of seminal legislation that advanced the civil rights and liberties of our country”. ( bit.ly/33hn5V3 ) Then-President Obama eulogized Byrd.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-biden-clan/false-claim-joe-biden-pictured-with-grand-wizard-of-ku-klux-klan-idUSKBN2103C3

McConnell, the Republican Senate leader, also spoke at Byrd’s memorial service — and other Republicans issued statements remembering Byrd. Texas Sen. John Cornyn said that Byrd was “a tireless public servant” and that the “Senate has lost a great champion, he will be missed greatly.”

Now go scourge yourself until I tell you to stop, you liar and fool. Trump made you look stupid again with another misrepresentation you regurgitated.

I always felt that my progressive ideology was a natural result of my atheism and 'skepticism', so it was really weird to find all these angry conservatives online shouting at women, muslims and black people while calling themselves atheists and rational skeptics.

I think the 'problem' with SJWs online is that a lot of concepts that 20 years ago would have been discussed mainly by well-educated academics, such as privilege, appropriation, etc., are now becoming mainstream and are being wielded by teenagers, lunatics, and people who are no smarter than you or I. This is technically a good thing - we need to get those concepts into the open if we are ever going to address the real problems they describe - but it means that there will be some people who fuck up or overreach while trying out these concepts. If somebody badly wants an excuse to dismiss all of feminism, or all of racial equality, there will thus inevitable be some teenager online with a webcam who is all too happy to give them that excuse - but why look for that excuse in the first place?

Neither of which compare to 12 MILLION slaves taken from Africa.

It's tragic that so many had to die, but the fault lies with those who kept slaves.

And your quote shows that Lincoln didn't believe in racial equality. That's unfortunate, but ultimately irrelevant to his position on slavery:

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites—causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty—criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

That someone would even contemplate advocating the purchase of slaves in this day and age shows just how fucked up and repugnant so-called "libertarian philosophy" is. I know personal property is a core tenet of libertarianism, I just didn't realised it extended to people.

It's fucking vile.

@quantumushroom, I'm trying to figure out how to we can find some sort of common framework between us so we can have a conversation about this. For the moment, let's just talk about Paul himself.

Upfront, here are the things I see as facts about Paul:

1. Ron Paul owned a company that published several newsletters with his name in the title.
   
2. Those newsletters contained overt, incontestably racist commentary
   
3. Ron Paul opposes the Civil Rights Act
   
4. Ron Paul opposes having a national holiday for Martin Luther King day
   
5. Ron Paul says he's not racist
   
6. But Ron Paul has not, as far as I've been able to find, given any sort of speech where he explains the moral problem with discrimination
   
7. Ron Paul protected the identity of the author of the articles in question
   
8. When that author was independently revealed, he did not condemn the author or disassociate himself from him
   
9. People can lie about what they believe
   
10. Which Paul demonstrated by saying he didn't know about or approve what was in the newsletters, then later a reporter uncovers proof that he did know about them and approved them
    

Now what I have about Paul is what you would call a theory (and what eggheaded people like me call a hypothesis). This theory explains all those facts, and more. That theory is: Ron Paul is a racist.

I don't know it's necessarily the explanation, I'm just saying it's the best theory that fits the available facts.

Now this theory could be easily destroyed by Paul if it were false. All Paul would need to do is give one speech, where he admits to just being so grossly negligent and incompetent that he couldn't even manage a newsletter, or where he admits to having been racist in the past and tells us about his journey towards becoming a believer in racial equality.

But he hasn't done that. Instead he's gone after his accusers and critics, while refusing to concede he's made a mistake of any kind at any point, even though clearly something must've gone wrong -- his name ended up on a bunch of racist articles.

Until someone comes in with new, verifiable facts that contradict that theory, or comes up with a new theory that fits the facts better, I see no reason for anyone to say "you're wrong about Paul being racist" to me.

And just as an aside, even if Obama, Jeremiah Wright, and I were all racists, it would have zero bearing on whether Paul is racist or not.

Right QM. However, objective karma requires that there be a level playing field from the start. This is clearly not the case with social equity, political equality and racial equality. Liberalism is therefore an attempt to identify and correct imbalances be they natural or social.

What it seems to come down to is a pragmatic versus idealistic world view with each side claiming the higher ground.

This is one of these half-truths the right likes to tell people about the Civil Rights Act.

Sure, more Democrats opposed it than Republicans, but those weren't northern and western liberal Democrats, those were conservative Southern Democrats. If you look at the breakdown of votes by party and region, you see that it was the representatives of the former Confederate states that voted against it.

Also, think about some notable individuals who voted against it. Arizona Republican Barry Goldwater, conservative hero even today, voted against it. One of the so-called Democrats who voted against it was South Carolina Democrat Strom Thurmond, who later became a Republican.

In fact, if you think about the former confederate states, do they tend to vote Republican, or Democratic today?

As for the point about the KKK, they too changed parties in the same time period. They really liked (and still like today!) the kind of reasoning people like Barry Goldwater and Rand Paul use on the Civil Rights Act -- it's wrong because it takes away freedom from racists to discriminate.

Modern conservatives run on a platform that includes dismantling legal protections from discrimination. They use their persuasive clout to stoke racial resentment, and to vilify anyone who expresses even the slightest complaint about racial insensitivity. When called out on it, they hold up events from 50 years ago; not as proof that they're interested in racial equality, but primarily to try to discredit the people who champion equal rights in 2010 as being somehow hypocritical.

Democrats don't deny our past. We definitely don't claim to have always been pure on the question of race, and we don't claim to be pure on it now. What we do claim is that we're committed to using legislation to blunt the worst effects of it, and use whatever persuasive clout we have to kill off the rest of it.

I may only be dreaming, but I like to think that even without the government forcing businesses to allow all races, that eventually those businesses that did discriminate would simply go out of business. Like Rand said, it's just not good business practice.

The question to me is, would our culture develop faster (toward racial equality as well as many other topics) without the "enlightened" pushing us toward the future? Is it possible that legislating an enlightened attitude simply suppresses the ignorance and bigotry so that it lingers and festers? Is it possible that without the civil rights legislation that bigotry will disappear faster? I don't know. Probably not. But it is what libertarians believe, and they have every right to believe that without being lumped in with the bigots. I wish it were true, so I see where Rand is coming from.

BTW, this is modern politics. A politician can't always give a straight answer to a nuanced question, because an out-of-context sound bite can ruin a career.

I would say you're right, but for 50 years of successful prosecution of civil rights law. I don't think you realize how fucked up it was before both public and private agitation against private sector racism.

No, our society isn't perfect, and racism certainly hasn't been wiped out, but most of us feel its much better than when some slice of property rights were put over racial equality.

By your logic, because some people run stop lights, we should remove the stop light.>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

^But that is just the point, even with laws, people can still get away with institutional racism. If I don't want to hire someone because he is black, then I could just fabricate any number or disqualifications for him. The same goes for drugs, anyone that wants drugs can get them. Anyone that wants to engender racist store policies can usually get away with it, for awhile at least. So you turn him into a criminal as the solution, just as the drug user becomes a criminal. You don't fight racism with laws, if anything that emboldens it. You fight it by heros like the people you mentioned standing up and saying they aren't going to take it anymore. I don't question the goal, I question the means.
(and I apologies about my tone earlier, it was meant to add some levity but it could be taken as sarcasm)

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Racial Equality' to 'Racial Equality, red house, black people, white people' - edited by gwiz665

Reverse Racism:

Yes, it is a made-up word, but it was made up to describe something specific.

Affirmative action is a good example. It is based on the discrimination from others. It tries to achieve racial equality by counteracting perceived racism, requiring the inclusion of a certain proportion of minorities.

So you have a policy that tries to use a form of racism to counterbalance a different form of racism. That is what I understand as "reverse racism"... forcing the consideration of race to prevent discrimination based on race.


Limbaugh, on the other hand, sees it as "racism against white people". Maybe that is the definition many people use, but that just seems like normal racism to me.

I'm sure Obama's choice was partially based on race/gender, but as long as he chooses qualified people then I really don't care what color/gender they are.

Actually i've re-read the entire thing. There is no way you've accidentally misunderstood me. Your accusations of me being against tolerism is simply an attempt to antagonise me. I won't waste any more time on this. Here's my first post, and here's you pinning me as AGAINST tolerance. Enjoy.

dannym3141
"that's what morgan freeman is saying.

Racial equality is when no one even thinks about the need for black history month. To draw one's own connotations of racism from any use of the word "black" and ban it as a result is counter productive.

What i suggest IS treating others with respect."

dystopianfuturetoday
When arguing against tolerance, charges of racism are to be expected.