White males should organize.

[Bunz]

And you're going to duck my rebuttal of that post? Don't blame you.

No, I was replying to it, when in your consistent trolling beat me to it. To be honest, I got done only an hour or so ago, from 14 solid hours of rigging my boat. I am a little slow today.

 

[Libsmasher]

No, I was replying to it, when in your consistent trolling beat me to it. To be honest, I got done only an hour or so ago, from 14 solid hours of rigging my boat. I am a little slow today.

Ok, but don't call me a "troll". Nowadays, that's basically nothing more than an insult, which is forbidden by the rules.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Funny the guy you attacks "libs" all the time, does not want people to say we ...when in a debate talking about whites as a race, where I am white.

 

[Libsmasher]

Funny the guy you attacks "libs" all the time, does not want people to say we ...when in a debate talking about whites as a race, where I am white.

Why don't you just scuttle on out of here and leave this thread to those who want to debate the issue?

 

[Libsmasher]

You raise an interesting point here Libs. But I tend to disagree. Firstly, any discimination you percieve towards white males is not bald faced, but instead rather subdued.

This is flatly nonsense. "Affirmative action" - wait I forgot the latest euphemism - "DI-versity" - infests most significant institutions in this country - from the military to every corporation under the sun to labor unions to universities to police and fire departments to government contracts. And anti-white male discrimination is a zero-sum game - benefitting someone because of their race or gender is inseperable by definition from penalizing someone else because of their race or gender, and the group that will get screwed the most by this is the group that has both the "wrong" race and the "wrong" gender - white males.

Especially compared to the issues faced by other groups, whereas those are/have been bald faced.

To solve problems in the past connected with racial discrimination, by creating even more racial discrimination, is like filling in a hole in your front lawn by digging another hole to get the fill dirt.

 

[Bunz]

Ok, but don't call me a "troll". Nowadays, that's basically nothing more than an insult, which is forbidden by the rules.

If you insist on making Liberal a bad curse word as you have, turning into nothing more than an insult, I will glady you call you a troll. You responded to a post I made not in regards to you, before I have even a chance to respond to your post. What I often do, especially after not visiting a thread for awhile is to respond to each respective post individually and work my way down the list. You jumped in with nothing to respond to. Troll.

 

[Libsmasher]

If you insist on making Liberal a bad curse word as you have, turning into nothing more than an insult, I will glady you call you a troll. You responded to a post I made not in regards to you, before I have even a chance to respond to your post. What I often do, especially after not visiting a thread for awhile is to respond to each respective post individually and work my way down the list. You jumped in with nothing to respond to. Troll.

I HAVEN'T used "lib" as "a bad curse word" - you can't show a single example.

 

[SW85]

We already had an all White male political group it was called the KKK... really didn't work out so well.

Funny, no one says the Crips or the Black Panthers should disqualify blacks from lobbying, or that the MS-13 should disqualify South American immigrants.

 

[Libsmasher]

Funny, no one says the Crips or the Black Panthers should disqualify blacks from lobbying, or that the MS-13 should disqualify South American immigrants.

His comment was assinine and not really worthy of a response. What do you think of the OP?

 

[Dr.Who]

The need for a white group, the present status of a white so called majority, or the history of any white groups are all irrelevent.

If some white people wanted to start a white magazine, white lobby, or even a countryclub, they would be called racists and the law would even come down on them.

There should be no restriction on why people want to form groups. Didn't I see that in the constitution somewhere?

 

[SW85]

His comment was assinine and not really worthy of a response. What do you think of the OP?

I am not really convinced by it. History has shown affirmative action and similar initiatives can be defeated without appeals to racial sensibilities.

Not to mention it would just legitimize all the race hustlers on the left.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

The need for a white group, the present status of a white so called majority, or the history of any white groups are all irrelevent.

If some white people wanted to start a white magazine, white lobby, or even a countryclub, they would be called racists and the law would even come down on them.

There should be no restriction on why people want to form groups. Didn't I see that in the constitution somewhere?

I would not call them racist just dumb ****'s

 

[Libsmasher]

I am not really convinced by it. History has shown affirmative action and similar initiatives can be defeated without appeals to racial sensibilities.

Not to mention it would just legitimize all the race hustlers on the left.

History does not suggest you are correct about defeating "affirmative action". What I call the "new era" in "affirmative action" began with the Nixon administration's Philadelphia Plan in 1969. (The initial instance was Roosevelt's wartime executive order to the defense industry to hire blacks.)
So it's been almost 40 years, and "affirmative action" is alive and well. If you go back and look at the political and legal commentary leading up to the USSC Gratz and Grutter cases (which were decided in favor of upholding the University of Michigan's racist admission policies) you'll see that all the predictions were that this would be the death knell for "affirmative action". Instead, "thanks" to the soon to depart from the court Sandra Day O'Connor, "affirmative action" got a huge revival under the new euphemism "diversity". There is no indication, therefore, that it will depart anytime soon. White males therefore have to organize and fight it (and similar anti-WM trends) in the only arena left in the US that counts - politics.

 

[SW85]

History does not suggest you are correct about defeating "affirmative action". What I call the "new era" in "affirmative action" began with the Nixon administration's Philadelphia Plan in 1969. (The initial instance was Roosevelt's wartime executive order to the defense industry to hire blacks.)
So it's been almost 40 years, and "affirmative action" is alive and well. If you go back and look at the political and legal commentary leading up to the USSC Gratz and Grutter cases (which were decided in favor of upholding the University of Michigan's racist admission policies) you'll see that all the predictions were that this would be the death knell for "affirmative action". Instead, "thanks" to the soon to depart from the court Sandra Day O'Connor, "affirmative action" got a huge revival under the new euphemism "diversity". There is no indication, therefore, that it will depart anytime soon. White males therefore have to organize and fight it (and similar anti-WM trends) in the only arena left in the US that counts - politics.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Where affirmative action has been defeated (California and Michigan spring to mind, but other states did it as well, all by ballot initiative), it has been done without appeals to white racialism.

 

[Libsmasher]

This has nothing to do with what I said.

Where affirmative action has been defeated (California and Michigan spring to mind, but other states did it as well, all by ballot initiative), it has been done without appeals to white racialism.

Now it seems we have a total disconnect. I have not called for "white racialism", the organization I imagine would be no more "racialist" than the NAACP used to be. If you're talking about California Prop 209 passed in California in 1996, then you are apparently unaware that it has been widely ignored by state officials, especially university officials, who are more concerned with getting illegal aliens into university than whether white males are treated fairly. It also gave rise to racist scholarship funds, for which white males need not apply:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDEAL_Scholars_Fund

Ward Connerly's other efforts in this regard (if that is what you are talking about - not sure anymore) have had a very spotty success, with some going down to defeat at the polls, and others regularly tied up in court challenges when they have succeeded. The racist policies in the corporate world remain firmly institutionalized, and are only extremely rarely challenged. Really, why should the establishment end of all of this crap, if the afflicted group never speaks up for itself?