To my dearest Obamabots

[quote name='A4NoOb' post='1386505' date='Sep 7 2008, 07:31 PM'][quote name='Hooya' post='1386400' date='Sep 7 2008, 07:20 PM']You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Read this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/business/31view.html
Then come back and talk about Democrat v. Republican economic policies and which expand or contract the economic divide.[/quote]

Well this nothing short for Obamabots. I referred to Reagan economic policies as those McCain should follow and the vast majority of Ronald Reagan fiscal policies were taken from Democrat John Kennedy. This article does not deal with Reagan's fiscal plans but with the average net results from Republican v. Democrat, by lumping all Republican leaders and the same for Democrat leaders. It was Republican George Bush Senior's stupidity that labeled these policies as "voodoo economics". The reason for Bush Senior's recession was the departure from Reagan policies and the deal he struck with Democrats in Congress. There are good Republican economic strategies and bad ones. Similarly to how Democrat Carter's idiotic economics lead to one of the worst financial situations in American history (which is similar to Bush I's).

You are a McCainbot. I have posted more policy in this thread than you have A4NoOb.

By the way, the phrase "smaller government" means absolutely NOTHING unless you say what exactly he's going to do to make it smaller. I'll tell you a few things that don't make government smaller that McCain supports:
1. Repealing Rowe v Wade - Forcing a religious policy of some onto everybody
2. Consitutional ban on gay marriage - see #1
3. Patriot Act - the single largest conceptual entrenchment of our personal freedoms that impacts the every day lives of millions of Americans

Please, tell me some of the things McCain will do to make government "smaller" (taxes are a non-issue, as long as they exist, they exist). Also, please tell me some things that Obama will do to make government "bigger". A "bigger" government to me imposes more restrictions on people's personal choices in their day to day lives.

Click to expand...

Wow you do one day's research googling different policies from different candidates and now your Mr. KnowItAll. Please tell me why we should divert this issue to abortion? You want to hear me on abortion then create a separate thread. Same thing with Gay Marriage. These are issues where government involvement is required no matter which partisan you belong to. The prime reason we have a government is to protect ourselves from foreign and internal threats. So we can thank the Patriot Act for preventing criminality and the potential deaths of Brooklyn Bridge and Ohio Mall. Noel Exinia was found smuggling over 500 pounds of cocaine through the American border from Mexico.
[/quote]

The article is a distillation of information from a 300 page book. I don't for an instant believe that you are more qualified to talk about the issue than the professor of poli-sci at Princeton that wrote said book. I also fail to understand how actually knowing about the issues places me in the camp of "Obamabot". I thought a 'bot was someone that was just blindly following based on the media hype. I don't think that many of those people exist, and for those that do there is a member of the republican party following for exactly the same reason.

Just comparing how much real information I posted versus the information you posted. I posted more. End of story.

I never claimed to be Mr. know it all.

I never suggested we start talking about abortion or gay marriage, I just listed those examples of things I would consider "big" government, and it seems that by your definition you agree with me (gay marriage and abortion are not foreign or internal threats and I don't believe these are situations where "government involvement is required"). Anecdotal evidence to support the patriot act... sure, OK.

Sorry, doing a later edit on your anti-terrorism points. I couldn't come up with anything about the Ohio Mall thing you mentioned. Care to share a link about that? As for the Brooklyn Bridge thing, the only things I could find were a shooting in 1994 - long before the patriot act - and some counter-terrorism exercises that were held there (not a direct reaction to a threat from what I can tell). So I'm not sure what you're referring to with those.
The Noel Exinia thing is probably the only truly positive use of this kind of surveillance that I've read about (and has nothing to do with cocaine really, but my anti-drug-war stance is a different topic). The problem I find with using that as an argument is that it was a result of FISA, which was enacted way back in 1978 and only amended as part of the patriot act (a positive that I will grant you). I'm not against this kind of surveillance - it's the intra-domestic stuff that I'm against.

You responded to my post but ignored exactly everything that I asked you to defend your position on. Please look at my last paragraph (which you even quoted) and answer that question.

[quote name='Prophet' post='1386374' date='Sep 7 2008, 03:58 PM']4. Affirmative action is not something I agree with. You see, I speak as a black man second; Firstly I speak as an American who is disenfranchised. And being disenfranchised is not racially exclusive. There are whites and blacks and browns of all hues that will go to sleep hungry tonight. In essence, the problems of being black are second to the problems of being black-listed in America. I believe that those who need the most help, should be given the most aid; race holds no water here. Which isn't to say that the historically oppressed don't merit an extra leg up, but I think a better form of aid would be better schools for children in the ghettos of America. These children are disproportionately made up of minorities and they are in desperate need. Two birds, one stone.

5. I like the part where you try to educate me while completely missing the point. How does your assertion that slavery existed beyond America, excuse the concept that a people who endured said slavery (and Jim Crow) because of the color of their skin, should now be told not to vote based on race? "Lynch me for being black"; is a fine logic. But now voting impartially due to race is somehow inexcusable. As if a vote were some how a more drastic matter than the lives of my people.[/quote]

I don't have much time, so I'll just reply to these two points.

4. You say one of the best ways to help the poor children in the cities is to get them a better education. But as I have seen, Obama has been at the very least non-committal if not against the use of school vouchers. Schools aren't going to get better if you throw money at them. It takes incentive, something that school vouchers would bring. Many public schools are doing so poorly because they have no competition. If you bring competition into the picture, everything will improve. Because competition is one of the main driving forces of success in markets. The market of education is no different is this aspect. They have a complete monopoly in education, because these children have no say in where they spend their alloted tax dollars to go to school. If little Timmy is playing basketball in his backyard, he isn't going to play very hard. If you give Timmy a really nice hoop and the most expensive basketball, he will be happy, but still won't play very hard. But when you bring little Johnny into the picture and tell them that the winner of the basketball game will get $5, it is at that point where you'll see little Timmy try his best. You will be hard pressed to find a situation in which this concept doesn't apply. If schools have competition, they will try harder to provide better education and the poor children will benefit.

5. How dare you. "Lynch me for being black" is, and has always been, horrible logic. To say that anyone would agree with that is extremely insulting. The OP's point was that slavery is not limited to African Americans. That was only the case in America's history. Does it make sense for whites to have a feeling of dissent towards Muslims because many where enslaved a few hundred years ago? That wouldn't fly quite well. In our society. You never endured slavery. You said "Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote..." You now have complete legal protection along with everyone else against violence, you aren't being oppressed (with affirmative action, it's quite the opposite), and you can vote along with everyone else if you please. So using the word "us" is completely wrong in this sense. It was your ancestors, not you, who had this horrible experience. Racism is no longer a substantial issue in society. If a politician was proven to be a devout racist, I do not hesitate to say his career would be over. So because of this, voting based on race is racist in itself. You're judging who to vote for based purely on the color of their skin. That is simply not logical, such as slavery was illogical in the past.

Oh, and LETS CRITICIZE THE OP BECAUSE OF HIS LARGE TEXT AND USE OF COLOR. NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THIS IS HIS BLOG AND HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS WITH IT.

[quote name='Foie' post='1386759' date='Sep 8 2008, 04:55 AM'][quote name='Prophet' post='1386374' date='Sep 7 2008, 03:58 PM']4. Affirmative action is not something I agree with. You see, I speak as a black man second; Firstly I speak as an American who is disenfranchised. And being disenfranchised is not racially exclusive. There are whites and blacks and browns of all hues that will go to sleep hungry tonight. In essence, the problems of being black are second to the problems of being black-listed in America. I believe that those who need the most help, should be given the most aid; race holds no water here. Which isn't to say that the historically oppressed don't merit an extra leg up, but I think a better form of aid would be better schools for children in the ghettos of America. These children are disproportionately made up of minorities and they are in desperate need. Two birds, one stone.

5. I like the part where you try to educate me while completely missing the point. How does your assertion that slavery existed beyond America, excuse the concept that a people who endured said slavery (and Jim Crow) because of the color of their skin, should now be told not to vote based on race? "Lynch me for being black"; is a fine logic. But now voting impartially due to race is somehow inexcusable. As if a vote were some how a more drastic matter than the lives of my people.[/quote]

I don't have much time, so I'll just reply to these two points.

4. You say one of the best ways to help the poor children in the cities is to get them a better education. But as I have seen, Obama has been at the very least non-committal if not against the use of school vouchers. Schools aren't going to get better if you throw money at them. It takes incentive, something that school vouchers would bring. Many public schools are doing so poorly because they have no competition. If you bring competition into the picture, everything will improve. Because competition is one of the main driving forces of success in markets. The market of education is no different is this aspect. They have a complete monopoly in education, because these children have no say in where they spend their alloted tax dollars to go to school. If little Timmy is playing basketball in his backyard, he isn't going to play very hard. If you give Timmy a really nice hoop and the most expensive basketball, he will be happy, but still won't play very hard. But when you bring little Johnny into the picture and tell them that the winner of the basketball game will get $5, it is at that point where you'll see little Timmy try his best. You will be hard pressed to find a situation in which this concept doesn't apply. If schools have competition, they will try harder to provide better education and the poor children will benefit.

5. How dare you. "Lynch me for being black" is, and has always been, horrible logic. To say that anyone would agree with that is extremely insulting. The OP's point was that slavery is not limited to African Americans. That was only the case in America's history. Does it make sense for whites to have a feeling of dissent towards Muslims because many where enslaved a few hundred years ago? That wouldn't fly quite well. In our society. You never endured slavery. You said "Race was a good enough reason to kill us, was good enough reason to oppress us, for years it was a good enough reason not to allow us to vote..." You now have complete legal protection along with everyone else against violence, you aren't being oppressed (with affirmative action, it's quite the opposite), and you can vote along with everyone else if you please. So using the word "us" is completely wrong in this sense. It was your ancestors, not you, who had this horrible experience. Racism is no longer a substantial issue in society. If a politician was proven to be a devout racist, I do not hesitate to say his career would be over. So because of this, voting based on race is racist in itself. You're judging who to vote for based purely on the color of their skin. That is simply not logical, such as slavery was illogical in the past.

Oh, and LETS CRITICIZE THE OP BECAUSE OF HIS LARGE TEXT AND USE OF COLOR. NEVERMIND THE FACT THAT THIS IS HIS BLOG AND HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO WHATEVER THE HELL HE WANTS WITH IT.
[/quote]

As far as the "better schools" issue goes, I respectfully disagree with you. An argument could be made for and against vouchers. I do believe you are right that it would in theory work for a time, but I believe it wouldn't be a fix that would last. What is to stop us from running into this exact same problem? The structuring of private schools right now is strong, but we would easily over exert the system if vouchers caught on and what might that lead to? If private schools fill, how will we determine a precedence for admittance? What will the voucher system consist of, pay-what-you-can and the government pays the rest? Or would it be here's a voucher for X amount, you need to pay the difference. I'm far from an authority on this, so I might very well be missing a key part to this debate. My biggest fear however is this; there are parents who could careless if their children get a good education. You can set up a system where a family need only pay 5 dollars a month for their child to switch from the lowest public school to the greatest private one and you know what? There will be those parents who would still not take advantage. I like the concept of overhauling our current school system, because we can ensure that the children of a drunkard and the child of a responsible parent, can both get a better education.

Now on to your second point. I in no way meant to insinuate that anyone on this forum is agreeable that lynching blacks is some how logically sound, I was only expressing that there was a point in this countries history that saw this act as acceptable. Perhaps I illustrated the point too graphically, but you must remember I have had to explain it now 4 or 5 times. The tell tale sign that my meaning was not in anyway to be perceived in the manner you have perceived it, was the quotation marks. I was simplifying my point, which is this: in a country where people of color were killed for said color; in a country where the lynching of these colored people was at a time "fine logic"; I have no patience, nor should any black person to hear "don't vote based on race." Where as you would like to act as if the enslavement of my forefathers was some ancient practice that I have drudged up, I will not allow it. We are not that many years removed from chains and rope and the ramifications of slavery still exist. If you believe differently, then please explain to me why blacks are disproportionately amongst the disadvantaged.

To the point of "whites were slaves too, you don't see us whining". I'm going to first say to you, that this is a truly ignorant argument and I hope you open your mind to what I'm about to tell you, because people trot out this misconceived counter far too often. Now, it can be argued extensively that slavery in America was far different from the forms of slavery that preceded it; this is a point that can be made and I will make it in a moment. But first I must shake loose this idea that somehow because a people who were once slaves, have come out of it and regained their social footing; this is proof that all former slaves should be able to recover just as quickly or without assistance. Even if we pretend that the circumstances of white enslavement in the Barbary Coast, is identical to black enslavement in America; even if I allow this huge pretense, your point still falls apart. How can anyone set a precedence for post-enslavement recovery?

Furthermore, now that we are free of the pretense let me state it clearly: American slavery was unique. It was in many ways a slavery of a different kind, a kind that many consider to a brand new form of slavery. Now I'm sure you are wondering if perhaps, I am saying all of this because I am black and in turn this only more relevant to me, because it happen to my people. Let me assure you, that is not the case. There are volumes upon volumes written on this basis, classes are taught around our country following this logic. Do you believe that all the proofs and historical re-examination is conjured up to appease blacks? Do you feel these books and courses are all based around a lie or are you willfully ignorant; able to refer to the little known fact of white slavery, while all the time blinding yourself to the blaring signs that point to the uniqueness of American slavery?

I'm not going to go into too many points of what sets American slavery a part, because if you cared to know these details, they are easily researched.

Suffice to say this; It is widely regarded that race had never played such a intrinsic role in the enslavement of a people, until American slavery. Slaves in America did not just happen to be black, slaves in America were slaves because they were black. Even while black slaves worked in the Caribbean and in French and Spanish colonies, these blacks were treated significantly different then their American counter-parts. In America the idea that slaves are a lower class of people, eventually transforms into blacks are a lower class of people and hence it is morally fine to have them serve as slaves. The greatest proof of this comes in two forms. The “one drop rule” and the American era of Jim Crow. If one drop of n**** blood was enough to make a man a slave, than what does that say about the American regard for the n**** people? Moreover, when the black people are released from slavery, the years to follow prove no easier because the rampant hatred of the n**** has taken grasp. Some of the worst things to befall blacks, occur after slavery has ended.

Lastly, you are right I have never actually been a slave. Just as the vast majority of Jews have never seen a concentration camp. Just as the modern Native American, did not watch as their forefathers were cut down. Just as most American men and women were not in the twin towers when they fell, but all have promised to “never forget.” And it is just like all those I have named, that I too carry with me not only the blood of my slain brethren but so too do I choose to bear their scars. And until the ramifications of slavery are set right, until true equality is reached and it becomes more than the convenient facade you erect, until that day I will show my scars as proof and I will do so without apology.

John McCain is pathetic, he's abandoned all his principles just to get the nomination. He was against Roe vs Wade being overturned, now he says it should be reversed. He's just toeing the party line nowadays. It's actually sad to see that.

[quote name='Jiggah']Obama's drilling policy is that oil companies are not utilizing the land leases that they've been given. There are still a ton of land that can provide oil that has not been developed. I also believe his idea of limited drilling goes in hand with the fact that states will have a choice as to whether or not drilling will be permitted on their coasts. Both Republican governors of Florida and California have rejected drilling off their shores.[/quote]

Off shore drilling is accepted along the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska and unless the Congress does something funny by Sept. 30th, the same will apply to South California.

The criticism of McCain's plan is that it does not deal with where the waste will be stored, which is indicated in the article you posted. A limited amount of nuclear power plants would be fine, but 45? Really? Where do we put all that waste? In my backyard, in your's?

Click to expand...

Obama hasn’t done his homework. The popularity of breed reactors has suddenly risen due to its efficiency and conservation. Instead of leaving residue to be thrown somewhere, the remains can be reused at roughly 80%. I’m personally for FBR’s but Democrats are too paranoid to actually set a preventative plan and go ahead.

During the Reagan years, the poor actually got poorer and the rich got richer. It's what's happening right now. The deficit during the Reagan years weren't just tied to the Democrats social programs, but in a huge part due to increased military spending during the Cold War, on defense programs that went nowhere i.e. the Star Wars program. It's wonderful that he got revenues, but he outpaced the revenues with spending. Also, our current deficit is not a concern now, but at some point in the future it has to be addressed. The fact that foreign countries are buying into America isn't a concern? What are McCain's proposal that will stimulate the economy?

Click to expand...

Ronald Reagan’s policies endured the effects of Carter’s economic inertia. When Jimmy Carter assumed presidency in 1976 and poverty rates were at 9.x%. By 1980 they hit low 13.3. Of course during Reagan year’s they peaked at roughly 14-15 and then dipped down to 11.x by 1986. Same thing with interest rates. Inflation began during the late years of Carter policies and recession started during the first two years of Reagan’s presidency.

Secondly, missile defence was completed. Other countries like Poland have also extended their interest in missile as it was/is Russian surrogates who show discomfort for these policies. Gorbachev held personal meetings with Ronald Reagan asking him to dismantle his “Star Wars program” and promised to reciprocate by terminating half of Russia’s weaponry.

I agree, businesses are the future. However, there is a huge difference between a small business and a corporation. When money is flowing out of the economy, but not back in we have a problem. Small businesses are the future, where money and work will stay within the country. Corporations, not so much.

Click to expand...

It’s all intertwined. General Motors gives contracts to small businesses just how Shell buys from Nuclear Power Plants. Not to mention how these “evil” corporations are the same ones funding majority of employment in the world. Unlike in Canada where the number one employer is the government. That is a scary thought.

[quote name='Hooya']The article is a distillation of information from a 300 page book. I don't for an instant believe that you are more qualified to talk about the issue than the professor of poli-sci at Princeton that wrote said book. I also fail to understand how actually knowing about the issues places me in the camp of "Obamabot". I thought a 'bot was someone that was just blindly following based on the media hype. I don't think that many of those people exist, and for those that do there is a member of the republican party following for exactly the same reason.[/quote]

My issue isn’t the fact that you’re trying to become knowledgeable. It’s good for everyone and I respect you for it. However, you came to the conclusion of voting for Obama before you even have seen these articles. Your response to my input shows nothing but arrogance towards this entire political discussion: You could care less if I have a point, the prestige of this writer automatically gives him the benefit of the doubt. Well that’s fucking great buddy. Go read the book and come back with your “real information”.

"You responded to my post but ignored exactly everything that I asked you to defend your position on. Please look at my last paragraph (which you even quoted) and answer that question."

Learn the basic fundamentals in reducing government. It means lowering the jobs offered by the government and increasing employment in private sectors.

I don't know why I'm still in this debate, but I'm assuming you people still want a fucking response.

[quote name='Prophet' post='1387601' date='Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM']As far as the "better schools" issue goes, I respectfully disagree with you. An argument could be made for and against vouchers. I do believe you are right that it would in theory work for a time, but I believe it wouldn't be a fix that would last. What is to stop us from running into this exact same problem? The structuring of private schools right now is strong, but we would easily over exert the system if vouchers caught on and what might that lead to? If private schools fill, how will we determine a precedence for admittance? What will the voucher system consist of, pay-what-you-can and the government pays the rest? Or would it be here's a voucher for X amount, you need to pay the difference. I'm far from an authority on this, so I might very well be missing a key part to this debate. My biggest fear however is this; there are parents who could careless if their children get a good education. You can set up a system where a family need only pay 5 dollars a month for their child to switch from the lowest public school to the greatest private one and you know what? There will be those parents who would still not take advantage. I like the concept of overhauling our current school system, because we can ensure that the children of a drunkard and the child of a responsible parent, can both get a better education.[/quote]

The problem with the school system is the system itself, it is by design geared towards passing standardize test then it is of actaully learn. Coupled with the fact that being a teacher as a career is one of the least "college monetary" professions out there gives no incentive to our competitive market to persue. Just in Houston, teachers make $30,000 or less a year, while other professions with the same ammount of "university/ college time", actually pay significantly more. It truly is a sad day when the people responsible for teaching us, actually become jaded just because the way the system is setup. The way to fix the school system is actually through the teachers themselves. Because within all of the circumstances of a poor school a great teacher can change the way students; think, believe, and live. While new supplies / schools / programs help, it is ultimatly the teachers responsibility for the learning of students within their care. Teachers have also been reduced to teach ciriculum that has explicitly to do with the "Standardize Test System", where there is no promotion of freedom of thought, but is reduced to what could be on a test. The goverment doesnt help matters, because they only give schools "funding" dependant only upon these test scores. So, if your school doesnt have the "important, school related studies", you loose funding and essentially the schools themselves become worse off.

[quote name='Prophet' post='1387601' date='Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM']Now on to your second point. I in no way meant to insinuate that anyone on this forum is agreeable that lynching blacks is some how logically sound, I was only expressing that there was a point in this countries history that saw this act as acceptable. Perhaps I illustrated the point too graphically, but you must remember I have had to explain it now 4 or 5 times. The tell tale sign that my meaning was not in anyway to be perceived in the manner you have perceived it, was the quotation marks. I was simplifying my point, which is this: in a country where people of color were killed for said color; in a country where the lynching of these colored people was at a time "fine logic"; I have no patience, nor should any black person to hear "don't vote based on race." Where as you would like to act as if the enslavement of my forefathers was some ancient practice that I have drudged up, I will not allow it. We are not that many years removed from chains and rope and the ramifications of slavery still exist. If you believe differently, then please explain to me why blacks are disproportionately amongst the disadvantaged.[/quote]

I think your logic is a little askewed, you say that this "country's history" thought it acceptable to lynch the black race? I beg to disagree, unfortunaltly sir that is a generalization and should not be taken as fact. The actaul vast majority of people thought it was wrong, and if you do a little more research, the Jim Crowe laws were enforced in Southern States. Being as a mostly State doctrine, it was hard to overturn because of the 10th admendment of the US Consitution, which states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The States took the initiative to endores these laws, therefore the people were subject to them, however it is important to note that these laws were repealed, because of the people that believe that these laws were wrong came together to tear them down. I would also like to note that there was a substatial ammount of white persons that staked thier reputation, jobs, families, and lives to join and help the NAACP, through the trouble times. Most of what you put here is propaganda fed to you by would be teachers in your suburbs suggesting still that the white man is doing everything in there power to keep you down. I have experienced this first hand. While, I was in middle school, I was forced to go to a "disproporionately amongst the disadvantaged" all black school. It was amazing how many lessons were soon to be pulled out as achieveing black power, or the version of history that warrents that white people in general will or have always oppressed the blacks. I was failed in my 8th grade english class because I wrote a paper on "Opression of the Irish Immigrants". My teacher refused to grade it, changing the assignments directions to say "Write a paper on Black Oppresion." Because she didnt like to be proved wrong, that blacks were the only ones to feel oppression in the US. When I confronted the priciple on the matter, he kept to what the English teacher's decision and decided to fail me for the semester based on that. How does this go towards "reaching equality?"

[quote name='Prophet' post='1387601' date='Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM']To the point of "whites were slaves too, you don't see us whining". I'm going to first say to you, that this is a truly ignorant argument and I hope you open your mind to what I'm about to tell you, because people trot out this misconceived counter far too often. Now, it can be argued extensively that slavery in America was far different from the forms of slavery that preceded it; this is a point that can be made and I will make it in a moment. But first I must shake loose this idea that somehow because a people who were once slaves, have come out of it and regained their social footing; this is proof that all former slaves should be able to recover just as quickly or without assistance. Even if we pretend that the circumstances of white enslavement in the Barbary Coast, is identical to black enslavement in America; even if I allow this huge pretense, your point still falls apart. How can anyone set a precedence for post-enslavement recovery?[/quote]

I really do hate to burst your bubble here too, but the US is not the first to exploit a group of people to endure slavery. While, how morally wrong that slavery is, the Arabs almost exclusively enslaved "Christians", and the Egyptians exclusivly enslaved "Jews" (and blacks once the jews fled). This is however not a novel concept. To try to seperate your race out as novel idea to slavery, is just used to boost your ego, and narcissitic image of your race. Slavery is slavery. Arabs were known for cutting of arms of slaves, fingers, gouging eyes out, beheading. So, please save me the sob story that your race has had it the worse. I'm actaully sick to my stomach over people who believe it.

[quote name='Prophet' post='1387601' date='Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM']Furthermore, now that we are free of the pretense let me state it clearly: American slavery was unique. It was in many ways a slavery of a different kind, a kind that many consider to a brand new form of slavery. Now I'm sure you are wondering if perhaps, I am saying all of this because I am black and in turn this only more relevant to me, because it happen to my people. Let me assure you, that is not the case. There are volumes upon volumes written on this basis, classes are taught around our country following this logic. Do you believe that all the proofs and historical re-examination is conjured up to appease blacks? Do you feel these books and courses are all based around a lie or are you willfully ignorant; able to refer to the little known fact of white slavery, while all the time blinding yourself to the blaring signs that point to the uniqueness of American slavery? I'm not going to go into too many points of what sets American slavery a part, because if you cared to know these details, they are easily researched. Suffice to say this; It is widely regarded that race had never played such a intrinsic role in the enslavement of a people, until American slavery. Slaves in America did not just happen to be black, slaves in America were slaves because they were black. Even while black slaves worked in the Caribbean and in French and Spanish colonies, these blacks were treated significantly different then their American counter-parts. In America the idea that slaves are a lower class of people, eventually transforms into blacks are a lower class of people and hence it is morally fine to have them serve as slaves. The greatest proof of this comes in two forms. The “one drop rule” and the American era of Jim Crow. If one drop of n**** blood was enough to make a man a slave, than what does that say about the American regard for the n**** people? Moreover, when the black people are released from slavery, the years to follow prove no easier because the rampant hatred of the n**** has taken grasp. Some of the worst things to befall blacks, occur after slavery has ended.[/quote]

In fact as stated in my pervious post, why is all the lessons of pervious "slavery" ignored. Because it incoviences the propaganda that black slavery was the worst. Your logic is extreamly flawed because there are many books, and classes taught the way that slavery was not very diffrent, from the pervious examples. Stop trying to be so self rightegous, to say you have had it the worse. The subject is moot and of no matter. I doesnt matter how it happen, it only matters where we go from here!

[quote name='Prophet' post='1387601' date='Sep 8 2008, 07:06 PM']Lastly, you are right I have never actually been a slave. Just as the vast majority of Jews have never seen a concentration camp. Just as the modern Native American, did not watch as their forefathers were cut down. Just as most American men and women were not in the twin towers when they fell, but all have promised to “never forget.” And it is just like all those I have named, that I too carry with me not only the blood of my slain brethren but so too do I choose to bear their scars. And until the ramifications of slavery are set right, until true equality is reached and it becomes more than the convenient facade you erect, until that day I will show my scars as proof and I will do so without apology.[/quote]

One thing you forget, is that most white americans have never owned a slave, Even within the south only a third of the population owned slaves, and that was just limited to the south. Almost all northern states did not endorse or have slavery. So you are still cutting down a race that in large part had nothing to do with it. Ok, While I do respect you upholding your heirtage, it is however counter productive to achieveing equality with your pride. Just like the pride of the white people needs to go away, so does the black population. Let me be the first to say, "I AM WHITE, I AM SORRY ON THE BEHALF OF MY RACE, NOW LETS MOVE FORWARD TO CREATE A TRUE AMERICA, ONE WITHOUT BARRIERS OF DISCRIMINATION, AND THE IGNORANCE OF BIGOTRY." Dr. King believed in this! I believe your a follower of his work, yes? I can tell you this, Dr. King never would have supported Affirmative Action, nor other programs to "equate by disequate" race. He wanted us to ignore the color of our skins. Because to be so prideful in your own race, makes you in theory a racist! To vote for someone because they are black is racist. You want true equality? Then we all need to stop thinking that one race owes another, and just move on. Again, if your an advent follower of Dr. King, he only preached against socially biased laws, and never sought to "punish" the whole white race because of the black enslavement. I believe Dr. King to be a great man, but it sounds more like your siding with Malcolm X, where he believe and eye for an eye. Which, he believe that the white man should pay, and so by transfering power to the black man, instead of trying to just work together as brothers. I dispise Malcolm X, but I believe that Dr. King had it right. He is still a man that we can all look up to, and hopefully move forward from this narcissistic society.