"If you think racism isn't part of the conservative mindset,

Your's only draw back in fear. Mine burns out completely! c.i.

You know, BLatham and Dyslexia can have the best of both worlds--Edward I (the one referred to as "Edward Longshanks" in the fantasy movie Braveheart--based on actually fiction) was a fan of hanging, burning, drawing and quartering. David ap Griffith, who had been his childhood companion, was treated to that entertainment at Chester after the death of his brother, Llewellyn ap Griffith, and the subsequent collapse of Welsh resistance. The victim is first hanged (with the knot placed so as to choke, and not to break the neck) until almost dead, then taken down and revived. Then he is burned with red-hot iron rods. Finally, he is drawn and quartered. Edward also did this to William Wallace, although i doubt if we need suppose that there was any apotheosis à la Mel Gibson.

Treats for everyone!

Yes, Edward Longshanks, better known as "Hammer of the Scots." My husband and I were in Scotland at the time of the premier release of 'Braveheart" in Stirling, Scotland, where the monument to William Wallace is located. The Scots were not too impressed with the movie, one reason was that the battle of Stirling Bridge was not shown on a bridge but in a wide open expanse of ground. Pure fiction with the Hollywood enhanced making it even more unrealistic.

When they finished their foes off by D and Q they then placed your head on a pike and let the townspeople see. Horrible.

Regrettably, more proof:

George W. Bush issued a stern rebuke to Senator Trent Lott in December for his praise of the segregationist 1948 presidential bid of Strom Thurmond. But Bush has revived a practice of paying homage to an even greater champion of the Confederacy?-Jefferson Davis.

Last Memorial Day, for the second year in a row, Bush's White House sent a floral wreath to the Confederate Memorial in Arlington National Cemetery. Six days later, as the United Daughters of the Confederacy celebrated Jefferson Davis' birthday there, Washington chapter president Vicki Heilig offered a "word of gratitude to George W. Bush" for "honoring" the Old South's dead.

Bush has quietly reinstated a tradition dating back to Woodrow Wilson that his father had halted in 1990. The elder Bush was weary of infighting among various Confederacy groups, so his White House quit participating altogether. The current Bush White House denies any change in policy. But John Edward Hurley, head of the Confederate Memorial Association in Washington, says, "No one saw a wreath from 1990 until George W. Bush got elected," and other participants in the annual event support his account.

It's not clear why, after more than a decade's lapse, the current Bush White House resumed this symbolic tribute to the Old South. But one of the organizations connected to the ceremony is the Sons of Confederate Veterans, whose "Chief Aide-de-Camp" is Richard T. Hines, a politically active lobbyist from South Carolina. In that state's brutal 2000 Republican primary, Hines reportedly helped finance tens of thousands of letters blasting Bush rival John McCain for failing to support the flying of the Confederate flag over the state capitol. Hines declined to comment.

Look Away, Dixieland

I find it funny that yesterday Bush announced that there is still prejudice towards the races and America must do something about it. I find it to be a direct attack upon himself in lieu of his recent racist policies.

Which policies were those?

Most

Let me expound a little - especially his belief that any system that benefits the blacks is unconstitutional whereas a system that benefits white, rich is okay. This is not only racist but building a class system!

How do you feel about Social Security?

It has also been destroyed by the Bush Administration in deferrence to the rich!

Social Security was destroyed? When? Why didn't I read about it? :wink:

Seriously, the question was: are you for or against Social Security? (Sorry if that wasn't clear.)

Seeing as it was 1/3 of my retirement, I am for it. Seeing as the likelihood of it surviving until then - gone in paybacks to the rich, war to support the rich, and a devotition to destroyed all that came before - I do not have any warm fuzzies of the future.

Are you a racist?

What does it matter?

What does it matter whether you are a racist? I think it matters a great deal, and whether others are racists seems to matter a great deal to you.

The reason I ask is that you have expressed support for a racist program...

The life expectancy of a white male in our country is 74.8 years and that of a black male is 68.3. This disparity means that the average white male will receive Social Security benefits for 6.5 years longer than the average black male, making Social Security a federal program that effectively takes money earned by black wage earners and redistributes it to white retirees.

You have stated repeatedly that President Bush and others are racists. You have based this claim on the fact of these people's positions for or against policies or programs that you believe have a disparate effect on different ethnic groups. By these statements, I believe you have defined a "racist" as someone who supports policies or programs that you consider advantageous to whites or disadvantageous to blacks, without regard to the reason for that support.

By that definition, one could call you a racist based solely on your stated support for Social Security, a program that benefits whites to the detriment of blacks.

trespassers says:



This is inherently untrtue. Social Security sees no color. It is based upon money put into your account and for how long. I have no idea where you get this idea.

Bush got to go to a University that has a very high standard, and requires you maintain a high standard once there. I need not rehash his deficencies in this area. It is based upon a legacy quota system - that is far more Constitutionally wrong than a system that tries to allay the wrongs of the past that did not allow someone to get into the "White" priviledged system that advanced their causes.

Neither does an admissions policy that does not take ethnicity into account, but you are here arguing that ethnic disparity in admissions--an outcome of an ethnicity-neutral admissions policy--must be redressed, and that those who oppose doing so are racists.

How then can you argue that the disparity of outcome in the Social Security program is of no concern simply because the program is ethnicity-neutral in its application? I would encourage you to give this some thought, because it seems to me that you are taking two mutually exclusive positions here.

I would further ask that you reconsider your position that opposing a program intended to benefit blacks automatically means one is a racist. You may disagree with the reasons others have for opposing programs like affirmative action, but that doesn't mean the only reason for opposing such programs is bigotry.

I don't think that Bush is bigot, he is agar to the culture - then again he never had a thought of his own. His rightwing conservative backers are the bigots - big time bigots! Bush kowtows to the rightwing.

BillW. But social security does favor the whites over blacks. Why, you ask? Because the average longivity of blacks is less than 65 years - before they can quality for social security, although they pay into the 'system' from their pay checks like everybody else. c.i.