Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (801127)	8/13/2014 9:00:27 AM
From: one_less	Respond to of 1572371

It is racist when it is institutionalized in an effort to solidify classism. It is not racist when it is the result of free association.

To: i-node who wrote (801127)	8/13/2014 1:25:03 PM
From: bentway	1 Recommendation Recommended By J_F_Shepard Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1572371

Doug Thompson at OpEdNews has a story called "Secret Service Agents Say Cheney Was Drunk When He Shot Lawyer." Thompson claims there's a written report from his personal detail that states he was "clearly inebriated" when he shot Harry Whittington. "Agents observed several members of the hunting party, including the Vice President, consuming alcohol before and during the hunting expedition, the report notes, and Cheney exhibited 'visible signs' of impairment, including slurred speech and erratic actions, the report said. According to those who have read the report and talked with others present at the outing, Cheney was drunk when he gunned down his friend and the day-and-a-half delay in allowing Texas law enforcement officials on the ranch where the shooting occurred gave all members of the hunting party time to sober up." - See more at: downwithtyranny.blogspot.com

To: i-node who wrote (801127)	8/13/2014 3:20:31 PM
From: J_F_Shepard	Respond to of 1572371

Was the segregation of Little Rock High School a product of racism???

To: i-node who wrote (801127)	8/13/2014 6:44:20 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1572371

>> Why is segregation not racist? It is a pretty natural phenomenon, actually. Societies segregate themselves all the time. Always have. Is it natural? I am sure you would like it to be true. But if it was completely natural, then I think people of color would not emigrate to countries that are predominately white. Why is it that blacks are segregated all over the country, even today? There are nearly a million blacks living in 4 square miles of Harlem. Check out the "Pork-N-Beans" of Miami and tell me how many whites you find there. Or East St. Louis where fully 98% of the population is black (and the rest Hispanic). Oak Cliff & South Dallas, check those out. 5th Street west to 240 from Downtown Memphis. You think New Orleans is the French Quarter Melting Pot, but go check out the Lower 9th Ward. Many of those neighborhoods exist from when racism/segregation was institutionalized if not legal. And Harlem is a bad example........it is quickly becoming minority majority much like its Brooklyn neighbors: Williamsburg and Bed-Stuy As it becomes economically possible, blacks are moving to the suburbs.........so much so that cities like DC and Atlanta have become minority majority cities where previously they were majority black. Your question is why is it not racist. Because groups of people do this. They may or may not choose it for themselves, there may be government incentives (like housing projects) which cause some of it. In the tiny town where I grew up it was "Vinegar Hill." Its still there, although they don't call it that anymore but its still where the black folk live. Long after institutional desegregation, these places persist but not because it is racist. It is home. Pine Bluff, AR is 70% black, and home of UAPB, which is attended almost solely by black students. As is Grambling State University and any number of other predominantly black universities. Why? We have desegregation, after all! Nothing wrong when people choose to live with certain people but its racist when its de facto, institutionalized or legalized. Stealing a phrase from that great orator George W. Bush, there is some "soft bigotry" of government intervention in there, and it is responsible for a lot of it. But government was supposed to be the solution, not the problem. So, you probably won't admit to that. What the hell are you and George talking about? But the facts are that George Wallace was never shown to have had the requisite intent to be a racist; he lacked the hatred or the violence. He was a segregationist, and that is a different thing from being a racist. He was just doing what he thought was politically expedient AND putting up a fight against the federal government trying to interfere in his state's business. BS. A segregationist who wants segregation legalized is a racist.