I have discovered a secret White Agenda and a secret Black Agenda

Tell Wifey, you guys just made me laugh, I have green eyes and blondish/redish hair, so that's where my temper comes from... LOL LOL
I'll blame my mother's side then! LOL
Living in NY all my life doesn't help either, you learn both verbal and physical self defense, got to.
In NY you get your hair done by Domincians, manicure and pedicure by Koreans, and you hang out with people of all races and nationalites.

I was about to sign off. Tell the Wife the stores are closed, it's Sunday
they close at 6pm, and I'd end up either watching QVC or on their site or scrolling through magazines, looking for all the things that I think I need.

Originally posted by Amuk

Originally posted by LL1
Good point, as I've seen here how members generalize, and throw
a blanket statement to cover an entire group of people for a few
that have committed a wrong (9/11 and the beheadings).
[/url]

Thanks that was my entire point

People want to take the words and actions of a few and blame EVERYONE in that group, well if ALL Gays, and ALL Muslims, and ALL Jews, etc; are evil what does this say about us?

Well your point still escapes me. The support you are getting seems to be from those who revel in the idea that there are bad whiteys, too.

And, you say, we should not condemn the entire group for the actions of a few?

Uhh.. yeah, so what's the point? That seems to be self -evident. Intuitively obvious. Readily apparent to the most casual observer. Once again, so what? It's something that most of us learned by the age 10 or so. If not, it is, as I said, intuitiveky obvious to most adults.

So your point is still a mystery. Unless you want to stir things up? Or are you simply looking for confirmation of something that most of us know?

I think the point Amuk is making is that it is NOT "Intuitively obvious" to some people.

Many people see it differently than you. There in lies the problem, being that we are actually correct.

Amuk,

Are these people working in cognito with the Homosexuals and thier agenda to take over the world ?

lol

Deep

First, id like to commend kinglizard for support of this thread, even tho it includes some materials that could be in violation of the rules.
Ignoring these issues doesnt make them go away, it just makes you feel good not having to deal with them. Hear hear for discussing things that others want to hide from, especially constitutionally protected voices that many would like to silence.

Now to where im gonna get it....(i am NOT pro hate)

Why is it wrong to hate someone/thing?
Where is it legislated that hate and expousing it is against the law? in fact as long as no crimes are being commited, i thought ALL views were to be allowed to be heard under the first ammendment.
OR
are many of you advocating censorship against them, it surely seems you are just as biggoted against them as they are against the groups they hate...

Hating the haters sounds like perpetuating the hate if you ask me.
your words and actions twords the group in example is no less discriminatory and devisive then theyre actions.

Talk about hypocracy....so its ok to hate some groups but not all?
Pro gay but hate nazi's? well youve discriminated right there now havent you.?

if you want inclusiveness and equality, you better mean it, as you will have to admitt people that you dont agree with in order to maintain equality.
Equality is a bitch aint it? you will have to stand next to that neo-nazi skin head and tell the vocal jews to pipe down and let this bonehead speak or you arent really for the spirit of the first amendment, your only in it until you disagree with the speaker. This would be selective interpretation of this right, imposed upon groups that "who?" decides are worth censoring.
get it reverse bigots? you have a right to hate, you dont have to be a nice person as long as you are not infringing upon others or commiting crimes.

Just because i dont like another group does not give me the right to impose my beliefs upon them, unless the democratic process has been used to arrive at this societal determination as to where the cultural identity issue sould be. (yes a democratic culture has the tools and the right to determine what is/is not acceptable within their cultural identity)

Special responce to Curme,

It's when whites want special privileges that bothers me. They want special days now? They had everyday for the past 200 years! Why can't they just be happy, being white, without forcing their agenda on me?

Im white so ill take a crack at this, but i dont speak for all whites.

basically, if some special interest minority group is getting entitlements, special protections (hate crime laws for example), or any other such right/privilage, then i want things to be fair and i want my special equal slice of the pie too.

Im not going to deny history here and say that whites havnt "enjoyed" the last 200 years like you allege, but i also cant say that this is an excuse to deny whites anything less than all these other groups get.

Im not familiar with wanting a "whites day" but know similar questions get asked by whites about; why can there be a miss black America pagent, but if there was a Miss White America pagent, all hell would break loose.

It seems like white people that arent radicals (like the neo-nazi's) seem like everyone elses group is getting "something" yet we are just getting brushed over because "youve had it better for too long".

Ive been denied promotions because management wanted a woman not a man, ive been passed over for jobs to fill an arbitrary quota to give someone in a minority a job i qualified for that they didnt.
Now i dont care what race/sex you are if your the best candidate for the job,
BUT,
to know this occured really made me feel like i was reverse discriminated against because of my race/sex. Ive done NOTHING to harm or hinder women or blacks, yet i must "pay" the price for the past which im ashamed of in order to make it right somehow. Not only does this idea seem punitive, but noone is standing up (except for the afore mentioned extremesits) to say "hey fair is fair"...

I personally dont like the term "african american", or "asian american" because i have to check a box that says white (sometimes caucasion) YET THERE IS NO "american" behinde my racial description. Am i less an American because im white on these forms? Are the other groups more american because of this? Where is the equality?

I wish more blacks and whites could sit and discuss these type of things without fear or stupid bias, and even if there is bias discussed, perhaps some empathy/learning could result.

This discussion may have slipped away from topic, but i felt curme deserved an answer, and i will listen to his responce receptivly.

Originally posted by jsobecky
Well your point still escapes me. The support you are getting seems to be from those who revel in the idea that there are bad whiteys, too.

No if you read the whole thread I added a "Black Agenda" where they urge blacks to kill white men and children and rape white women so my point is NOT there are bad whites or blacks either but that there are idiots in every group

And, you say, we should not condemn the entire group for the actions of a few?

Uhh.. yeah, so what's the point? That seems to be self -evident. Intuitively obvious. Readily apparent to the most casual observer. Once again, so what? It's something that most of us learned by the age 10 or so. If not, it is, as I said, intuitiveky obvious to most adults.

So your point is still a mystery. Unless you want to stir things up? Or are you simply looking for confirmation of something that most of us know?

If this point WAS "self -evident and Intuitively obvious" why do we have on almost a daily basis crap like "The Homosexual Manifisto" and "The Jewish Menace" and the "Muslims are all terrorists" and "The Christans are out to get us"?

All backed up with "proof" found on the internet.

If you still cant see my point I will spell it out for you.

1. The words of a few do not represent the entire group.
2. You can find "proof" to back any whaco theory you want on the internet.

I found another good one but forgot to link it, it was 'Proof" that the Babtist church was hand in hand, and a part of the KKK.

Am I trying to stir things up? I guess that depends on if you believe every thing you see on the net

Originally posted by CazMedia
Why is it wrong to hate someone/thing?
Where is it legislated that hate and expousing it is against the law? in fact as long as no crimes are being commited, i thought ALL views were to be allowed to be heard under the first ammendment.
OR
are many of you advocating censorship against them, it surely seems you are just as biggoted against them as they are against the groups they hate...

Let me say right off the bat I am not for censoring ANYONES speech, no matter HOW dumb or hatefilled it might be. I like it when the bigots are allowed to speak up because it makes them easier to spot.


But let me turn the tables here are you saying that for free speech we cant expose them for what they are?I have no problem with them spewing hatred as long as no one has a problem with me saying how ignorent that hatred is.

And I think crumes post was intended as a joke, kinda like the Joke of gays wanting equal rights is seen as "special" treatment

[edit on 18-10-2004 by Amuk]

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Amuk,

Are these people working in cognito with the Homosexuals and thier agenda to take over the world ?

Deep

I think so and they are all working for the shape-shifting satanic Lizard people

Originally posted by Amuk
If this point WAS "self -evident and Intuitively obvious" why do we have on almost a daily basis crap like "The Homosexual Manifisto" and "The Jewish Menace" and the "Muslims are all terrorists" and "The Christans are out to get us"?

Why do such things exist? Because wackos exist. I think we can all stipulate that fact. Is it news? No.

All backed up with "proof" found on the internet.

And before the internet, backed up with proof of anecdote, word of mouth, campfire tales, etc.

If you still cant see my point I will spell it out for you.

1. The words of a few do not represent the entire group.
2. You can find "proof" to back any whaco theory you want on the internet.

Intuitively obvious.

Whatever.

:shk:

Amuk turns table asking,

But let me turn the tables here are you saying that for free speech we cant expose them for what they are?I have no problem with them spewing hatred as long as no one has a problem with me saying how ignorent that hatred is.

No certantly under free speech,you can "expose" people for your perceptions of what they are. You can also express this opinion.

My point is that doing that...listening to them and then labeling them, you have commited discrimination on the spot....youve decided that their group deserves your condemntion at the least.

I find it amusing that so many have expressed condemnation for one special interest minority group, but seem to welcome others.
Hypocracy at its finest.

Yes everyone has an agenda, i just think its funny that so many hide theirs behind political correct inclusivness when they are really discriminating under a cloak of niceness.

Originally posted by CazMedia
I find it amusing that so many have expressed condemnation for one special interest minority group, but seem to welcome others.
Hypocracy at its finest.

Yes everyone has an agenda, i just think its funny that so many hide theirs behind political correct inclusivness when they are really discriminating under a cloak of niceness.

I have been called a lot of things but PC was never one of them.....LOL

Who am I discriminating against? I am not saying that they cant be Christans or whatever what I AM saying that they have NO right to FORCE their Beliefs on any one else.

You condeem Gays yourself and do not want them to to have Equal rights

I am taking NO ONES rights away, and only condeem those who try to force there beliefs on others,whos the Hypocrite?

To be the same I would have to be saying EVERYONE must be Gay and I am not.

Those that want to can be and those that dont, dont have to be.There is room in this world for us all, yes even those who hate as long as they dont harm anyone else.

Originally posted by CazMedia

My point is that doing that...listening to them and then labeling them, you have commited discrimination on the spot....youve decided that their group deserves your condemntion at the least.

So only THEY are allowed an opinion? As long as they stay out of my face they can hate all they want, and whenever I hear it I will comdeem it for the stupidy that it is

Amuk, my comments on PC-ness were made in general, and i spose could include you as well, but were more for responders than to you.

Amuk says... say what you want but,

they have NO right to FORCE their Beliefs on any one else

Id agree to a point....they have no right to FORCE their agenda, but id say they have every right to campaign, spread, and be politically active thru legitimate democratic means to push for their agenda.

Amuk then tries to draw a correlation with,

You condeem Gays yourself and do not want them to to have Equal rights

CAREFUL CAREFUL here Amuk....go search all my posts and find where ive EVER condemed gays for being amoral, sinners, perverts, or any other such negative phrase. (good luck, there is like a hundred posts by me with this subject.) I say this all the time...show me where ive said "gays are bad"....what ive said is no to gay marriage on a cultural level, never gay is bad.

IF as you allege that no special interest minority group should FORCE their agenda, then you would have to agree that the fiasco in California, where a gay supporting activist mayor and judge buddies tried to STEAL away the democratically derived state law barring gay marriage, and IMPOSE their non majority stance onto ALL citizens there was wrong. DO YOU? I do. So did the courts when they overturned the marriages.

You must also feel the same way about the gays suing the boy scouts. Because the gays tried to force their agenda upon the scouts...and the courts came back and said, the scouts have the right to do as they were...yet they are condemmed as bigots for this?

If you truly support the contention that no group should be ramming their agenda's down the necks of others, then you would agree that the gays were wrong to do so against the scouts eh? (i suspect a kerry flip-flop comming soon from amuk because i dont see where he can have these examples both ways.) Im not asking if you agree/disagree with the scouts or the gay position, im asking if the agenda pushing was appropriate.

Another question i have, and not just to Amuk, is at what point does a democratic society have the RIGHT to set cultural boundaries for itself in order to define the culture?
Basically, if everyone in America got to vote on gay marriage, and the vote came back "NO" you allege it is improper to have democracy determine this because "someone" isnt included or didnt have his ideas upheld?
If you do, then i seriously question which form of governance you are advocating we use here if not democracy? After all, in a democracy where the majority rules, someones ideas are not being accepted. Some group (the majority) imposed its will onto the minority.

Along these lines, why would it be wrong for any democratic society to determine that someting either was/was not acceptable to be legitimized culturally? At some point, someone is being told their behaivior is not being accepted. Society says murder is wrong, yet some of us would advocate it against certain people, lets say osama? (or members that post something you think needs to be erased from the timeline along with its creator)

Amuk says,

So only THEY are allowed an opinion? As long as they stay out of my face they can hate all they want, and whenever I hear it I will comdeem it for the stupidy that it is

my responce is the same as before, here it is again, (post 880365 from this thread)

No certantly under free speech,you can "expose" people for your perceptions of what they are. You can also express this opinion.

i guess you missed this as your having to really hustle now-a-days being your busy MODing and all.

discrimination is discrimination is picking one group before another for whaterever, even just suppo

I think you�re getting prejudice and discrimination mixed up here. There�s nothing wrong with discrimination, we all do it everyday. It only means to set apart, pass a judgment and act accordingly. If someone commits an act of murder or advocates it, society will discriminate against that person by isolating and punishing him.

Prejudice happens when you discriminate against an entire group based on the actions of a few elements.

to know this occured really made me feel like i was reverse discriminated against because of my race/sex

and you WERE. The only difference is that you wish your employers criteria for discrimination was based on qualifications instead of race/sex but this goes back to the comment you made about majority rule in a democracy. If most people think that affirmative action is a good thing, you may or may not agree, but that will be imposed on you nevertheless.

Originally posted by CazMedia

IF as you allege that no special interest minority group should FORCE their agenda, then you would have to agree that the fiasco in California, where a gay supporting activist mayor and judge buddies tried to STEAL away the democratically derived state law barring gay marriage, and IMPOSE their non majority stance onto ALL citizens there was wrong. DO YOU? I do. So did the courts when they overturned the marriages

They tried to make ALL citizens Gay? Show me were they tried to force every one in the state into a Gay Marriage. I guess you would be against the people that helped the run-away slaves because after all the were stealing someone elses LEGAL property, right.

You must also feel the same way about the gays suing the boy scouts. Because the gays tried to force their agenda upon the scouts...and the courts came back and said, the scouts have the right to do as they were...yet they are condemmed as bigots for this?

If you truly support the contention that no group should be ramming their agenda's down the necks of others, then you would agree that the gays were wrong to do so against the scouts eh? (i suspect a kerry flip-flop comming soon from amuk because i dont see where he can have these examples both ways.) Im not asking if you agree/disagree with the scouts or the gay position, im asking if the agenda pushing was appropriate.

I will answer both and I bet my answer will suprise you.

I dont think it was right for them to do it and the courts agreed. I would not agree with a gay man having a boy scout troop out camping any more than I would support a STRIGHT man having a girl scout troop out camping.

If I am gonna err I will ALWAYS do it in favor of childrens safety. No flip floping needed, yes with a little common sense you can have it both ways

Another question i have, and not just to Amuk, is at what point does a democratic society have the RIGHT to set cultural boundaries for itself in order to define the culture?

To a point yes. Our democratic society legalized slavery. Did that make it right just because it was legal. Would you support slavery if it was legal today?

At one time women had almost NO rights. Did that make it right? Would you support it because it was legal?

Our government also supported the slaughter of the native Americans. Did that make it right? Would you support the genocide of an entire people just because it was legal?

Should everyone have just shut up and let it go on?

A democratic country has the right to pass laws as it sees fit but we as Americans have the right to fight against what laws we dont think are right and civil disobediance is a part of our culture.

It has took us over 200 years to get to here, our ideas of who should be free, whose voice should be heard, hell even who was human has changed over the years

I will bet fifty years from now this wont even be an issue gays will have the same rights as everyone else and we will look back on this with the same embrassment we look back on slavery

Transient talks about my being discriminated against referance,

If most people think that affirmative action is a good thing, you may or may not agree, but that will be imposed on you nevertheless.

I agree, but this assumes that a majority concensus supports affirmativa action to start with...this hasnt been put to the people to my knowledge but has been legislated...also note that affirmative action has been being challenged all around as being a devicive quota system promoting not the best for the job, but a feel good fill in.

Yes, ultimatly IF the majority said this program was in the cultural interest, like it or not, id have to live with it being imposed upon me. That would be democracy in action.

Amuk seems confused with my question here about the california gay marriage issue.

They tried to make ALL citizens Gay? Show me were they tried to force every one in the state into a Gay Marriage. I guess you would be against the people that helped the run-away slaves because after all the were stealing someone elses LEGAL property, right.

Again i must ask that you avoid equating not being able to hold your lovers hand in the hospital with being made into personal property...the 2 issues are not even close to being the same magnitude of oppression.

I think you miss the point i was making....Im not saying they (the mayor and judges involved) tried to make everybody gay...what they did (which the courts found to be illegal) was to circumvent the will of ALL voters that cast votes on this issue, by ignoring the outcome and resulting laws, and attempted to push their agenda upon the culture that said "no thanks" to the gay marriage proposal. They STOLE democracy in california!!! They effectivly tried to steal all the votes against their agenda and negate them.

This tactic used by the pro gay agenda out there is illegal, devisive, anti-democratic, and insulting to other citizens rights. I find this "attitude" to work AGAINST their agenda and if your a gay rights supporter, you should be ashamed that someone tarnished your image by hijacking your intent and commit illegal acts in order to further your cause...

This act combined with the acts against the boy scouts have shown the nasty side of their agenda, the "we'll screw anyone over to get what we want agenda". These acts have seriously erroded my sympathy for this special interest minority groups agenda.

I asked... "Another question i have, and not just to Amuk, is at what point does a democratic society have the RIGHT to set cultural boundaries for itself in order to define the culture?"
Amuk answers,

To a point yes. Our democratic society legalized slavery. Did that make it right just because it was legal. Would you support slavery if it was legal today?

So you agree, yet have reservationsbased upon a percieved "right/wrongness" of the cultural decision.

Im not saying that using democracy to reach these determinations is a perfect solution....Indeed the culture can choose "wrong" on an issue by using democratic means. But
Doesnt that culture have the right to make that "wrong" choice for itself? Who is to say, other than the democratic majority, that they are wrong, or that they MUST adhere to someone elses agenda (under democracy)?

Amuk says,

A democratic country has the right to pass laws as it sees fit but we as Americans have the right to fight against what laws we dont think are right and civil disobediance is a part of our culture.

Yes we have this right, but isnt this pushing your agenda onto others as well? There is a line seperating, speaking freely about your agenda by recruiting willing people to your cause, AND violating the law by disruptive means. Thats pushing!