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: Brumar89 who wrote (935010)	5/14/2016 6:28:44 PM
From: Brumar89	1 Recommendation Recommended By FJB Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574000

What "White Privilege" really means By Donald Sensing What does "White Privilege" really mean? It is the Left's attempt to divert attention from the fact that they, and no one else, have virtually raped minority Americans, in education and economics, without relent for at least 50 years. And every time someone uses W.P. toward me that is exactly how I respond. Example, one of many, from How The Liberal Welfare State Destroyed Black America: The results of welfare policies discouraging marriage and family were dramatic, as out-of-wedlock birthrates skyrocketed among all demographic groups in the U.S., but most notably African Americans. In the mid-1960s, the out-of-wedlock birth rate was scarcely 3% for whites, 7.7% for Americans overall, and 24.5% among blacks. By 1976, those figures had risen to nearly 10% for whites, 24.7% for Americans as a whole, and 50.3% for blacks specifically. And today, the numbers stand at 29% for whites, 41% for the nation overall, and 73% for blacks. In other words, the entire country is moving rapidly in the wrong direction, but blacks in particular have reached a point of veritable catastrophe. The devastating societal consequences of family breakdown cannot be overstated. Father-absent families—black and white alike—generally occupy the bottom rung of America's economic ladder.Given the ultra-racist history of the Democrat party, it is simply impossible for me to believe that no one in the party understood this would happen. This was done on purpose and by design. Black Americans were solidly Republican before LBJ's administration; the 1964 civil rights act passed by a Democrat Congress had in fact first been introduced into Congress by Republicans in the 1950s, when Democrats then voted it down decisively. Why the change in 1964. LBJ's comment before the legislation was voted tells you all you need to know: “These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again.” Even the Huffington Post can face real history, now and then: " The Democratic Party’s Two-Facedness of Race Relations." This, too: " How America's Welfare System Hurts the People It's Supposed to Help" " Hard Truth About Welfare Programs And The Black Community" http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2016/05/what-white-privilege-really-means.html

To: Brumar89 who wrote (935010)	5/15/2016 1:36:05 PM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By Brumar89 Respond to of 1574000

To: Brumar89 who wrote (935010)	5/16/2016 6:48:50 PM
From: TimF	2 Recommendations Recommended By Brumar89 FJB Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574000

Is this issue turning in to the next version of this - -- A striking, and perhaps increasingly common, feature of Progressive political rhetoric is how Progressive ideas only ever exist in two stages: As long as the idea appears to be politically unpopular, any mention of it by a non-Progressive is easily dismissed by the Great and the Good. It is just a fringe phenomenon which cannot be associated with the decent, mainstream, common-sense progressive politician! Even talking about it is just cheap reactionary rhetoric to stir up the hatreds and fears their slavering hordes are so inclined to. Any effort to forestall such ideas from becoming fact, when that is so ludicrously unlikely, is just a distraction from the real issues. No honest journalist should fall for such an obvious con game by ever mentioning the idea. As soon as the idea appears to be politically viable, it instantly becomes so obviously a good and right thing that anybody who does not support it reveals himself to be a hateful bigot. Such bigots must not be heard and their hate must not be allowed to poison the lives and threaten the security of so many innocent victims. Notably, there is never an intermediate stage at which it is conceded that the idea might be worthy of discussion between decent, reasonable individuals with differing views. The transition from red-herring to holy-truth status is instantaneous. Debate is never appropriate. One recent striking example of this phenomenon is of course the issue of a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. 1 It is easy to forget that as recently as a decade ago, there were serious Congressional efforts to pass a federal traditional-marriage amendment. The opposition to these efforts was not led by those who publicly favored a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Such leaders were very rare then and all prominent Democrats then as fervently denounced this idea as they today fervently denounce any who disagree with it (which must include themselves from a few years earlier). Rather the successful opposition to the traditional-marriage amendment was led by those who claimed to oppose same-sex marriage, but dismissed efforts at a traditional-marriage amendment as a pointless waste of time because it was entirely inconceivable 2 that the right-wing Supreme Court would ever recognize such a right. Yet now, only a few years later, the Supreme Court (over the dissent of only a handful bigots) has done just that. Highly accomplished engineers are pushed out as CEOs positions of companies they co-founded and were born to lead, because it was revealed that years earlier they had supported—along with a majority of Californians—a state traditional-marriage amendment. Popular news organizations declare that there are no two sides to the same-sex marriage issue. Anybody under the mistaken impression that there were two sides is not the sort of person with which these organizations would wish to be associated. That many of the political leaders most adored by Progressives, such as President Obama, only recently expressed the very same opinions which they now contend merit banishment from polite society is a memory which needs to be suppressed. It is uncouth and divisive to even mention such facts. 3 specieaeternitatis.blogspot.com