NationStates Jolt Archive

Now this is not meant to be an attack on liberals here, however I have noticed contradictions liberalism's interpretation of "social freedom" (I'm leaving economic issues out for the time being):

Gun control - gun control policies are indeed, very socially authoritarian; a restrictment of your social freedom to own a firearm

Affirmative Action - I know a lot of liberal posters here *don't* support this but I still know a TON of liberals who do. AA's social restrictiveness come from how it curtails the freedom of the majority to succeed, in order to "augment" the freedom of the minority.

gun control however is a matter of serious public interest, much like preventing people from owning huge bombs or vats of anthrax and cyanide.

I wish we could just get back to classical liberalism...

Now this is not meant to be an attack on liberals here, however I have noticed contradictions liberalism's interpretation of "social freedom" (I'm leaving economic issues out for the time being):

Gun control - gun control policies are indeed, very socially authoritarian; a restrictment of your social freedom to own a firearm.

You've got the wrong liberalism- the anarchists are in that corner over there. Liberalism typically means a belief in the common good, as well as using the government as the most effective way to get things done. People buying AK-47's is NOT good for society, whatever Charlton Heston may have you believe. They don't reduce crime- they help it. You have a right to bear arms, and no liberal would deny your right to hunt. But you don't hunt with an AK-47.

Affirmative Action - I know a lot of liberal posters here *don't* support this but I still know a TON of liberals who do. AA's social restrictiveness come from how it curtails the freedom of the majority to succeed, in order to "augment" the freedom of the minority.
"Curtails the freedom of the majority"? Hardly. The system is in place to assure the American Dream can be in grasp for everyone. I personally think it should be based more on economic background than race, but this is for the greater good of the public. Upward mobility is a symptom of a healthy society, and affirmative action has the goal of increasing this.

Liberalism doesn't mean unrestricted rights for all. It means access to a productive society for all.

I'm a liberal and support a persons right to bear arms. But as I have said MANY times before, there needs to be limits on this right for the good of society as a whole. Personally, I don't think a private citizen needs or has the right to own a minigun.

As for a return to Classical Liberalism...There's more to society than the middle class.

The modern American liberal really doesn't seem much more pro-freedom than the conservatives. If liberals really cared about freedom, they'd all be working towards legalization of marihuana and gay marriage.

The modern American liberal really doesn't seem much more pro-freedom than the conservatives. If liberals really cared about freedom, they'd all be working towards legalization of marihuana and gay marriage.
Usually this is what I hear:
American liberal = UK conservative

The modern American liberal really doesn't seem much more pro-freedom than the conservatives. If liberals really cared about freedom, they'd all be working towards legalization of marihuana and gay marriage.

Marriage and drug laws should be left to the individual states.

The modern American liberal really doesn't seem much more pro-freedom than the conservatives. If liberals really cared about freedom, they'd all be working towards legalization of marihuana and gay marriage.

Uh...I'm not certain about marijuana, but myself and every other liberal I know support Gay Marriage.

Where are you getting your idea about liberals from?

Uh...I'm not certain about marijuana, but myself and every other liberal I know support Gay Marriage.

Where are you getting your idea about liberals from?
Must be thinking that a liberal is a democrat.

Marriage and drug laws should be left to the individual states.

OMG a believer in Federalism! :D

OMG a believer in Federalism! :D

That'd be me. :)

You've got the wrong liberalism- the anarchists are in that corner over there.

We don't generally see ourselves as liberal (not in that sense anyway).

Gun control - gun control policies are indeed, very socially authoritarian; a restrictment of your social freedom to own a firearm
Something is bugging me about this, but I have no idea what. Just a vague sense that something is wrong. :confused: Odd...

Usually this is what I hear:
American liberal = UK conservative

Not sure about being a UK Conservative, but they certainly are conservative by our standards.

gun control however is a matter of serious public interest, much like preventing people from owning huge bombs or vats of anthrax and cyanide.

Gun control has nothing to do with crime prevention. It's an excuse concocted by totalitarians to disarm the population and weaken any resistance to a future police state. The experts (Hitler, Stalin, Quaddafi, Castro, et. al.) agree: Gun control works!

That'd be me. :)

It's good to have at least one around here amongst all these statist believers in centralized government. I'm a proponent of states rights where the Constitution leaves off, myself. :)

Gun control has nothing to do with crime prevention. It's an excuse concocted by totalitarians to disarm the population and weaken any resistance to a future police state. The experts (Hitler, Stalin, Quaddafi, Castro, et. al.) agree: Gun control works!

Yes, that is why Britain is currently implementing its new 5 year plan while herding dissenters into gulags. :rolleyes:

Please, I'm pro-gun, but that arguement is just hysterics.

It's good to have at least one around here amongst all these statist believers in centralized government. I'm a proponent of states rights where the Constitution leaves off, myself. :)

If only there were more of us. :(

Yes, that is why Britain is currently implementing its new 5 year plan while herding dissenters into gulags. :rolleyes:

Please, I'm pro-gun, but that arguement is just hysterics.

That's what "gun control," has meant in almost every country it was implemented in.

If only there were more of us. :(
I tend to agree with you...

That's what "gun control," has meant in almost every country it was implemented in.

No it hasn't. I think you are underestimating the State. It has far more effective ways to get the populace cowtowing to its whims.

I tend to agree with you...

Maybe we should make a forum alliance or something. We have three so far. :)

Marriage and drug laws should be left to the individual states.


Marriage laws should indeed be left up to the states, but gay marriage is an equal protection issue.

Maybe we should make a forum alliance or something. We have three so far. :)

Good idea!

Good idea!

Perhaps we could call ourselves the States-Rightists?

Perhaps we could call ourselves the States-Rightists?

Sounds like a winner to me! :D

Sounds like a winner to me! :D

Now we just need Andaluciae's approval...

I'm certainly not the type liberal you describe. I'm for all personal freedoms that don't infringe on the rights of another.

I'm certainly not the type liberal you describe. I'm for all personal freedoms that don't infringe on the rights of another.

Sounds like you're libertarian, than.

erm... right. Just about every study KNOWN TO MAN concerning gun control shows that when a weapon is kept in a home, for security reasons or otherwise, the chances of a death increase exponentially. And that's death as the result of that gun being used playfully, accidentally, or on purpose. Guns in homes do not do anything to help protect the home; they increase the chance of someone getting shot. That's what guns do. Shoot.

Sounds like you're libertarian, than. In social issues, but I lean way left in eonomic issues. -8.88, -7.54 :D

Sounds like you're libertarian, than. In social issues, but I lean way left in eonomic issues. -8.88, -7.54 :D

Gun control - gun control policies are indeed, very socially authoritarian; a restrictment of your social freedom to own a firearm
I am perfectly open to people owning guns if there is a justifiable reason for it. AK-47's and .50 calibre BGM semiautomatic sniper rifles are not justified anywhere outside the military. If you tried to hunt with the latter, you'd blow the deer into bite-sized pieces.

I am perfectly open to people owning guns if there is a justifiable reason for it. AK-47's and .50 calibre BGM semiautomatic sniper rifles are not justified anywhere outside the military. If you tried to hunt with the latter, you'd blow the deer into bite-sized pieces.

What about home defense?

erm... right. Just about every study KNOWN TO MAN concerning gun control shows that when a weapon is kept in a home, for security reasons or otherwise, the chances of a death increase exponentially. And that's death as the result of that gun being used playfully, accidentally, or on purpose. Guns in homes do not do anything to help protect the home; they increase the chance of someone getting shot. That's what guns do. Shoot.

One would think that if "ust about every study KNOWN TO MAN concerning gun control shows that when a weapon is kept in a home, for security reasons or otherwise, the chances of a death increase exponentially" were true you would be able to provide a source.

Anyway are you just being American-centric, or does the same also apply to, say, Switzerland where citizens aren't just allowed to have firearms but are encourage to?

What about home defense?

I guarantee you the only thing a semi-automatic (automatics now, since the ban expired) will "defend" your home from is... Well, no, I can't do that. The semi-automatic won't defend. It'll just end. As in the person being shot. It'll go something like this:

Burglar: gimme your dough!
charlton heston: right. *ack-ack-ack-ack-ack........*

(later)

Policeman: wtf? what happened here?
charlton heston: well, officer, I was defending my home from this evil burglar. I was aiming to incapacitate him - shoot him in the leg or something, right? well, i guess i didn't let go of the trigger soon enough, because when his leg exploded, his body kinda fell over, cause you know, he had no leg, and right into my line of fire. By the time i had let go, there really wasn't much left....
Policeman: right. and a pistol wouldn'ta worked just as well? ooo! or, you coulda given him the money, cause, you know, you're richer than God, and then called us. yeah that woulda worked. *cuffs him*

It would look something like this:

Burglar: :eek:
charlton heston: :mp5:, :rolleyes:
Policeman: :headbang:

:eek: :mp5:

(later)

:rolleyes: :headbang:

You've got the wrong liberalism- the anarchists are in that corner over there. Liberalism typically means a belief in the common good, as well as using the government as the most effective way to get things done.

Modern liberalism -- doing what we think is best for everyone, your rights and the Constitution be damned!


People buying AK-47's is NOT good for society, whatever Charlton Heston may have you believe. They don't reduce crime- they help it.

Criminals don't obey the law, and the rest of us don't break it.


You have a right to bear arms, and no liberal would deny your right to hunt. But you don't hunt with an AK-47.

Q: What the hell does hunting have to do with the right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the United States Constitution?
A: Nothing
Q: Is it true that "no liberal would deny your right to hunt"?
A: Of course no, and to claim so is ignorant foolishness: we need look no further than recent events in the U.K.
Q: Do you hunt with an AK-47?
A: I do not -- but I could. The Avtomat Kalashniokva, Model of 1947, fires .30 calibre cartridge which is sufficient for the taking of most North American game.

erm... right. Just about every study KNOWN TO MAN concerning gun control shows that when a weapon is kept in a home, for security reasons or otherwise, the chances of a death increase exponentially.
Yes, the chances of death for an intruder. :D

I am perfectly open to people owning guns if there is a justifiable reason for it. AK-47's and .50 calibre BGM semiautomatic sniper rifles are not justified anywhere outside the military. If you tried to hunt with the latter, you'd blow the deer into bite-sized pieces.
You don't -- EVER -- have to "Justify" the exercise of freedom.

I guarantee you the only thing a semi-automatic (automatics now, since the ban expired) will "defend" your home from is... Well, no, I can't do that. The semi-automatic won't defend. It'll just end. As in the person being shot. It'll go something like this:

Burglar: gimme your dough!
charlton heston: right. *ack-ack-ack-ack-ack........*

(later)

Policeman: wtf? what happened here?
charlton heston: well, officer, I was defending my home from this evil burglar. I was aiming to incapacitate him - shoot him in the leg or something, right? well, i guess i didn't let go of the trigger soon enough, because when his leg exploded, his body kinda fell over, cause you know, he had no leg, and right into my line of fire. By the time i had let go, there really wasn't much left....
Policeman: right. and a pistol wouldn'ta worked just as well? ooo! or, you coulda given him the money, cause, you know, you're richer than God, and then called us. yeah that woulda worked. *cuffs him*

It would look something like this:

Burglar: :eek:
charlton heston: :mp5:, :rolleyes:
Policeman: :headbang:

:eek: :mp5:

(later)

:rolleyes: :headbang:
Ah, I see you know absolutely nothing whatsoever about self-defense, firearms, the law, Charlton Heston, law enforcement, economics or religion. There is literally NOTHING in your post that is even close to correct.

One would think that if "ust about every study KNOWN TO MAN concerning gun control shows that when a weapon is kept in a home, for security reasons or otherwise, the chances of a death increase exponentially" were true you would be able to provide a source.

Anyway are you just being American-centric, or does the same also apply to, say, Switzerland where citizens aren't just allowed to have firearms but are encourage to?

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:v0xeRR-nAegJ:www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/pdf/litreviewfirearmdeaths.pdf+guns+in+homes,+studies&hl=en

that would be a study for you. there you go.

What about home defense?
I don't think you quite realise just what this .50 calibre sniper rifle is. You could line people up and kill them all because the bullet fucking goes through them into the next person. If you're in your home, you will damage it, and the blood stains of little chuncky pieces of gore spattered everywhere would be a bitch to clean up. A .22 rifle would've worked just as well, just without the whole exploding part.

You don't -- EVER -- have to "Justify" the exercise of freedom.
Only if there is no victim. When one person's freedom infringes on another's, then there must be justification.

A .22 rifle would've worked just as well,
No, it wouldn't.

Only if there is no victim. When one person's freedom infringes on another's, then there must be justification.
My exercise of my God-given right to keep and bear arms does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.

Owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. It's wrong to deny a law-abiding citizen something on the theory they might misuse it. Any freedom can be misused, should we ban them all? The arguement that it might be misused can be applied to any of our freedoms.

No, it wouldn't.
Tell me, how would the .50 calibre BGM semiautomatic sniper rifle help you anymore than a .22 calibre rifle if someone was trying to hurt you? I guess if they're coming at you in a tank or a helicopter, then it would help, but I don't think that's what anyone has in mind. It's not James Bond.

My exercise of my God-given right to keep and bear arms does not infringe upon the rights of anyone else.
Well, if it's God-given, then it can't very well be taken away, since it was bestowed by a greater omnipotent being. So the whole discussion is void if this is the case.

Owning a gun doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. It's wrong to deny a law-abiding citizen something on the theory they might misuse it. Any freedom can be misused, should we ban them all? The arguement that it might be misused can be applied to any of our freedoms.
Indeed. But what happens when it can not do anything but be misused? Show me a practical non-military purpose for the .50 sniper rifle supra and perhaps I might consider it. Because I can not think of any.

There are also different degrees of possibility of misuse. Can a .22 shoot down an aeroplane? No, it can't.

Now, I'm liberal (on some issues), and I don't see how taking personal weapons from responsible citizens will prevent the irresponsible criminals from using guns.

The criminals will keep their guns anyway.

Of course, I'm not the most stable person, and if we have to tag every individual so that we can find out where every gun is in America--because we aren't responsible enough to manage it on our own--so be it.

And to make sure that citizens don't go over the top with their guns--if they do use one on a criminal, we shall try them for excessive violence. If a robber comes to you and you kill him--he will never pay for his act. If you cripple him to an inch of his life, he may be reformed.

People aren't responsible to have guns. People aren't responsible to NOT have guns. More drastic measures must be taken.

Now this is not meant to be an attack on liberals here, however I have noticed contradictions liberalism's interpretation of "social freedom" (I'm leaving economic issues out for the time being):

Gun control - gun control policies are indeed, very socially authoritarian; a restrictment of your social freedom to own a firearm

Affirmative Action - I know a lot of liberal posters here *don't* support this but I still know a TON of liberals who do. AA's social restrictiveness come from how it curtails the freedom of the majority to succeed, in order to "augment" the freedom of the minority.


<<sigh>>

Sure, not an attack on liberals, sure.

I'm not touching the gun control thing. That has been done to death.

I fully support affirmative action.

Any cursory look at the history of this country should provide a serious critique to the idea of a level playing field.

Blacks in America endured at least 200 years of slavery (though to be fair, we were only our own country for about a century), followed by about another eighty years of having extremely limited voting rights and segregation throughout the nation. Assuming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a pinpoint for the end of government-sponsored racism, we’re talking a quarter millennia that blacks were legally second class people (not even second-class citizens). All of this based solely on their color.

Until 1964, Blacks were legally pushed to the margin of society where many were left to dwell in poverty and powerlessness. Assuming racism stopped, merely removing the legal impediments that had so long kept Blacks in the impoverished peripheral fails to provide adequate means for the deconstruction of white dominance and privilege. It is not enough to merely allow Blacks to enter the arena of competition.

Again, even assuming no active racism continues, the status quo (white wealth and Black indigence, white employment and Black unemployment, white opportunity and Black disenfranchisement) is neither an acceptable nor neutral baseline. Without the deconstruction of white power and privilege how can we legitimately claim that the playing field is level? Does it not seem more logical, and indeed fairer and more just, to actively deconstruct white privilege, rather than let it exist through hegemony?

As Lyndon Johnson put it:

You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you're free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates or opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates... We seek not...just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.

As Lyndon Johnson put it:



lmao...Just his name makes me laugh.

My father's fairly old now, and he's a liberal in the sense he's a former union man. Although he doesn't care much about it anymore, he's remained fairly independent on all other liberal issues (throughout his life). Not all liberal are the same, and I wouldn't insinuate that, but living in the bay area it gets really hard to say that at times...cause I feel like I'm surround by sheep.

I'm sure you can say that about any side, but I personally don't match up with any particular party, and for some reason that makes me much more proud. This system needs to end the name, and start battling the issues....cause franky, neither side is a 100% right.

Usually this is what I hear:
American liberal = UK conservative
No, UK conservatives are more to the right than most European conservatives. US liberals are like European centrists.

Gun control has nothing to do with crime prevention. It's an excuse concocted by totalitarians to disarm the population and weaken any resistance to a future police state. The experts (Hitler, Stalin, Quaddafi, Castro, et. al.) agree: Gun control works!
I don't really care much about the issue of gun control, but do you really think that this is the secret leftist motivation behind the laws?

Given the current US government, surely liberals would want more gun freedom now?

That's what "gun control," has meant in almost every country it was implemented in.
Almost every country that has gun control is a dictatorship? Craziness on your part!

Does Western Europe look like a region of dictatorships to you? All of them have varying levels of gun control (from fairly free in Germany to an almost total ban in Britain).

Marriage laws should indeed be left up to the states, but gay marriage is an equal protection issue.
Remember that you're talking to a guy who thinks that the forced ending of segregation in the 1960s was an unacceptable violation of states' rights. :rolleyes:

I don't really care much about the issue of gun control, but do you really think that this is the secret leftist motivation behind the laws?

Given the current US government, surely liberals would want more gun freedom now?That's exactly why I want guns. When the right-wing fascist fundie nuts take over and come after me for giving voice to my dissent, I want to be able to blow to smithereens as many as possible when they come and get me. :D

That's exactly why I want guns. When the right-wing fascist fundie nuts take over and come after me for giving voice to my dissent, I want to be able to blow to smithereens as many as possible when they come and get me. :D


I could help out with my .45!

I don't think you quite realise just what this .50 calibre sniper rifle is. You could line people up and kill them all because the bullet fucking goes through them into the next person. If you're in your home, you will damage it, and the blood stains of little chuncky pieces of gore spattered everywhere would be a bitch to clean up. A .22 rifle would've worked just as well, just without the whole exploding part.

Home defense isn't solely about catching an intruder inside your dwelling (although I certainly agree with you about the effectiveness of using a 50 cal sniper rifle inside the dwelling.) I have lived in places where they have these things called drive-by shootings, see, and a 50 cal sniper rifle would be just the ticket. ;)

As a side note, I do not own a firearm and never have.

I wonder; does common ownership of guns make criminals more or less likely to shoot someone in the head from a distance instead of mugging them?

I wonder; does common ownership of guns make criminals more or less likely to shoot someone in the head from a distance instead of mugging them?

Common gun ownership has little to do with the likelyhood of a mugger shooting someone in the head. That's more dependent on the mugger's intelligence (usually low) and aim from long distances (usually off). :D

Common gun ownership has little to do with the likelyhood of a mugger shooting someone in the head. That's more dependent on the mugger's intelligence (usually low) and aim from long distances (usually off). :D

Why? Surely if they know lots of people have guns, a mugger would rather not take the risk of facing it, and would kill the victim instantly?

Now this is not meant to be an attack on liberals here, however I have noticed contradictions liberalism's interpretation of "social freedom" (I'm leaving economic issues out for the time being):

Gun control - gun control policies are indeed, very socially authoritarian; a restrictment of your social freedom to own a firearm

Affirmative Action - I know a lot of liberal posters here *don't* support this but I still know a TON of liberals who do. AA's social restrictiveness come from how it curtails the freedom of the majority to succeed, in order to "augment" the freedom of the minority.

If by liberal you mean libertarian, then you are right, but otherwise there is no contradiction between those two stances and social liberalism, since both encourage equal opportunity for the underprivledged and minority classes. Gun control is vital to the liberty of individuals and is a repellent to "mob rule," which can occur when thugs outgun the locale. Not everyone has access to a gun when legal, and controlling them to an extent prevents the privledged from overthrowing the underprivledged through force. AA is self explanatory.

Why? Surely if they know lots of people have guns, a mugger would rather not take the risk of facing it, and would kill the victim instantly?

See previous comment about intelligence and aim.

Maybe we should make a forum alliance or something. We have three so far. :)

make that four. The Federal Govt was intented to be VERY limitted in scope.

I dont think that marriage should even be a states rights issue however. I think that it as nothing to do with government whatsoever. Same with drugs, or anything that consenting adults may do to/with themselves.

Government should

1) protect our borders
2) enforce contracts(including the social one)
3) extend #2 to include some minor regulatory behaviour.

Why? Surely if they know lots of people have guns, a mugger would rather not take the risk of facing it, and would kill the victim instantly?

Lets think about how that would work from the muggers point of view.

1) he is going to get the same $50 odd or whatever dollars from the victim

2) his odds of getting caught go way up because the polce are going to be actively looking for him vs not even really bothering if no one got hurt

3) the gunshot is going to draw a lot of attention, making his odds of capture go up(he still has to approach the dead victim and go through his pockets)

4) The punishment he will receive is going to way up.. from probably nothing(mugging) to maybe life(murder).

So, for the same amount of money the criminal is now taking on a great deal more risk. Personally, I think muggers would just switch to a crime that doesnt involve interaction with the victim.

Its also probably why the incidence of "HOT" robberies is so much higher in the UK than the US. "Hot" robberies are those that take place when the victim is at home vs breaking in when the residents are away.

<<sigh>>

Sure, not an attack on liberals, sure.

read: How dare you criticize liberals. We know what's best for you weather you like it or NOT!



Any cursory look at the history of this country should provide a serious critique to the idea of a level playing field.

read: Just keep it cursory, because a critical look would really nullify the generalizations that keep you fooled.

Blacks in America endured at least 200 years of slavery (though to be fair, we were only our own country for about a century), followed by about another eighty years of having extremely limited voting rights and segregation throughout the nation.
read: Of course, we need not mention that many blacks were slave-owners and many other races were slaves. Lets make sure not to talk about american indians at all! (they had free reign of the continent for a millennia!) Of course, the irish, italians, hispanic, chinese, japanese and southeast asians refugees were able to overcome their obstacles without affirmative action. Us affirmative action imposers feel that blacks just aren't as capable of taking care of themselves. We have to help them or they'll never do it on their own!


Assuming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a pinpoint for the end of government-sponsored racism, we’re talking a quarter millennia that blacks were legally second class people (not even second-class citizens). All of this based solely on their color.

Until 1964, Blacks were legally pushed to the margin of society where many were left to dwell in poverty and powerlessness. Assuming racism stopped, merely removing the legal impediments that had so long kept Blacks in the impoverished peripheral fails to provide adequate means for the deconstruction of white dominance and privilege. It is not enough to merely allow Blacks to enter the arena of competition.

read: It does not matter that substantially more blacks were pulling themselves from poverty PRIOR to affirmative action than after.


Again, even assuming no active racism continues, the status quo (white wealth and Black indigence, white employment and Black unemployment, white opportunity and Black disenfranchisement) is neither an acceptable nor neutral baseline. Without the deconstruction of white power and privilege how can we legitimately claim that the playing field is level? Does it not seem more logical, and indeed fairer and more just, to actively deconstruct white privilege, rather than let it exist through hegemony?


read: The only way we can help the black people (who you can now see are too pathetic to take care of themselves) is to take opportunities away from other qualified people (especially the white ones - they really deserve to be screwed since they are white!) and then hand the opportunity to a black person who is not nearly so qualified (if at all!) THAT is equality! We demand racial parity everywhere, except the NBA. There is no reason a qualified black player should be pulled ust to make room for a less qlalified white player. That wouldn't be very fair, would it!!

As Lyndon Johnson put it:

You do not take a person who for years has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line of a race and then say, "you're free to compete with all the others," and still justly believe that you have been completely fair. Thus it is not enough just to open the gates or opportunity. All our citizens must have the ability to walk through those gates... We seek not...just equality as a right and a theory but equality as a fact and equality as a result.
read: We really don't have a standard to measure equality by, so we'll just start screwing the white people until, like the black people already did, they finally decide enough is enough.

read: How dare you criticize liberals. We know what's best for you weather you like it or NOT!



read: Just keep it cursory, because a critical look would really nullify the generalizations that keep you fooled.

read: Of course, we need not mention that many blacks were slave-owners and many other races were slaves. Lets make sure not to talk about american indians at all! (they had free reign of the continent for a millennia!) Of course, the irish, italians, hispanic, chinese, japanese and southeast asians refugees were able to overcome their obstacles without affirmative action. Us affirmative action imposers feel that blacks just aren't as capable of taking care of themselves. We have to help them or they'll never do it on their own!



read: It does not matter that substantially more blacks were pulling themselves from poverty PRIOR to affirmative action than after.



read: The only way we can help the black people (who you can now see are too pathetic to take care of themselves) is to take opportunities away from other qualified people (especially the white ones - they really deserve to be screwed since they are white!) and then hand the opportunity to a black person who is not nearly so qualified (if at all!) THAT is equality! We demand racial parity everywhere, except the NBA. There is no reason a qualified black player should be pulled ust to make room for a less qlalified white player. That wouldn't be very fair, would it!!

read: We really don't have a standard to measure equality by, so we'll just start screwing the white people until, like the black people already did, they finally decide enough is enough.

Wow. I'm glad my words were translated. I did not realize I was so irrational, ill-informed, or angry. Nor did I realize how unfair the NBA is to my white pride.