White without Apology

TooGoodReports ^ | 08/13/03 | Bernard Chapin

[dwd1]

Welfare?
Unemployment Insurance?
Workmen's Comp?
Aid to Women with Dependent Children?
Pell Grants for College Education?
Scholarships?
General Relief?
Medicaid?
Social Security?
Medicare?
Veterans Benefits?
Public Education?
Farm subsidies?
Low-Income Tax Credits?
Foreign aid?
Military assistance to allies?
Tax Credits for charitable donations?
Tax Exempt Status for churches?
Tax Breaks for foreign corporations?
Severance packages for Corporate executives?


I have the feeling you are not going to say yes or no to all of the above...As I said before...No easy answers...I don't know if anyone has the courage or authority to implement the objective you specified but I do appreciate the goal... Just a bit difficult with 250M people, 538 congressman, 50 governors, etc, and two very idealogically opposed political parties...

[LexBaird]

LB, which came first, the nation (I think you mean Republic) or the Constitution?

Before the Constitution, there was a confederation of States organized as a Republic, cooperative with each other, but much more individually sovereign. After, there was a more perfect Union, a Nation in truth.

[John Lenin]

As a 'white person' whatever that means, I am as dark skinned as most mexicans because of my Italian and Hungarian heritage I am amazed at how many people feel guilty for events and circumstances they had absolutely nothing to do with.

Since racism is a two way street and is nothing more than pride in your own heritage (whats wrong with that ?), the only thing you can attribute white guilt to is economics. Leftists like Soros and Buffett and the Hollweird crowd who have too much money for their own good continue to feed into this psyche. The notion that anybody who is white just has to show up and the world will lay a path to his or her riches is rediculous. Sure some people are born with a silver spoon in their mouth but the overwhelming majority of us start out in life with no advantages over anyone else, no high powered relatives or friends who put us on the yellow brick road to success. It's almost insulting to whites who don't make it, it's like what happened to you, you're white, how come your not rich with a nice house and a cushy job ?

It all started with the reparations movement, the thought that every wrong must be collectively righted.

[stainlessbanner]

Is a president justified in breaking the Constitution to preseve the union of states?

[Outlaw76]

"At least concede that it is still just a dream."

Yes it is still just a dream. It is a dream that has reached the hearts of millions. Oddly it seams more white people dream it these days that black. All to often I see people asking that special treatment be given to them because they have dark skin.

When you speak of this, it reminds me of my time in the military where we were required to do things that we did not agree because the instructions were given by someone who has the legal authority to do so...

I hope there was a typo there. I painted grass green due to a legal order once. Then I wrote about it to the people who ran Fraud Waste and Abuse. I never painted grass again.

I think that we should have a law concerning speed traps but it is not up to me. I still have to follow the law or risk losing my life or my freedom or my property. I do not agree with the law but I follow it.

No Argument there.

Are you taking the position that though affirmative action is the law, you are willing to violently oppose it or are you stating that there are others (not you, of course) that feel as if a race war is going to result from affirmative action?"

Not at all. I believe there will come a day when the current 'goals' are achieved and the bar will be raised even higher. I believe that there are groups of people who attempt at every turn to achieve superiority rather than equality. I believe there are people who will, given the opportunity, seek to give themselves permanent privileged status. I believe that there will come a day when they will be stopped. If they are not stopped by the very people they claim to be helping, all of those people will be caught up in the backlash that follows.

So, back to what I asked earlier, Who determines when enough is enough?

If you think there is an end to it, then by all means find that end and get the supposed 'leadership' on board to support bringing things to a close.
You asked in your post if you can trust me, I say yes you can. I live in the south, racism was frowned upon in my all white high school. Racism is frowned upon by leadership at work. I haven't heard any racist jokes (if you don't include polish, Irish, and Scottish jokes as racist---most don't) in an incredibly long time. (Except on BET and heck, I laugh at those too.) Things have changed incredibly in my lifetime alone. For the most part American's of European lineage have sought understanding and granted acceptance. Sure there are still many hearts left to change, but you wont do that with a sledgehammer, you will only breed contempt. Understanding and acceptance must come not only from those hearts that pump blood to melanin poor skin cells. If the debate gets too one sided, contempt, fear and hate are the inevitable outcome.

[Outlaw76]

Veteran's Benifits are not entitlements.
They are payed for with blood, sweat and all to many tears.

[dwd1]

I see that same problem...Believe me when I say that by the end of the day in Downtown LA, I was ready to get the he&& out of Dodge!!!

And when more people can understand where the other guy is coming from, that trust is going to be a given. Me, my ego is already at a point where I just want opportunity and I will take care of the rest...

I think by the time I am cashing retirement checks, this affirmative action thing is going to have a lot in common with the do-do bird and the dinosaurs...

That's what I teach my kids, that's what I tell my friends, that's the way it will be at my house...Best effort and best behavior...I owe that to you and everyone else who follows and believes in the law and the dream...

[dwd1]

and sometimes too many years...

3307 days

Ramstein, Naples, LA

No disrespect to those who have done their time in uniform...

[dwd1]

You deserve an answer to "When is enough, enough!" My answer would be when there is a general empathy for minorities and a respect for the equal protection clause of #14 that is found more easily than not....

Generally speaking, I think we are almost there. I do think I am in the second generation to live with the achievments and with the benefits of the civil rights movement... I was able to go to school, I have earned a good living... I think (this is my dream)in the near future when Senator Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL) or Senator Harold Ford Jr, (D-TN) declare that they are no longer a good fit in the Democratic Party and wish to switch parties and seek the nomination for the Republican Party (like Richard Shelby and Ben Campbell and there is such a conservative groundswell within the black community where we are truly an established interest within the Republican Party and the black community has a significant number who like myself, would refuse to accept reparations or (unless they come from some African Nation or Tribe that was involved) and any affirmative section because we see the opportunties and would feel insulted to know that we got something because of the color of our skin and not because we were the most qualified...I would say affirmative action definitely needs to be gone.

And I am serious...I would not accept any "reparations". I feel like I have been given my rightful share of the constitution and I do not accept that which I do not deserve...Especially when the government needs to be spending our money a little bit more wisely...

[LexBaird]

Is a president justified in breaking the Constitution to preseve the union of states?

This begs the question if Lincoln broke the Constitution. It's a "have you stopped beating your wife" type of question. There are two sides to the question, but I am of the opinion that the President did not exceed his authority, and that it was the Southern States that were acting unconstitutionally by attempting secession by force of arms.

If the South had wanted to test the Constitutionality of secession, they should have done so through the Supreme Court, not armed rebellion. By raising an army, they violated Article 1, Sections 8 & 10, and allowed habeas corpus to be suspended under Section 9.

So, instead, the matter was resolved by force of arms; the questions of secession and the keeping of slaves was a fait accompli, and the Southern cause was lost.

You pays yer money, and you takes yer chances.

[stainlessbanner]

I didn't phrase my question around Lincoln for good reason, but you brought him into the fold. Your "beat the wife" example is moot; extra points for the colorful attempt.

Ironically, you state Lincoln didn't overstep the bounds of the USC, but you admit the suspension of the habeas corpus, incorrectly placing blame on the southern confederacy. Let me remind you the Congress of the CSA voted twice to suspend, and failed to grant approval with Davis' final request. The difference? Congress was called to a vote.

Don't be fooled into thinking it was an emergency and Congress could not be called to session; the WBTS did not happen overnight.

[stainlessbanner]

they violated Article 1, Sections 8 & 10

Can you include that specific line items from the Articles and dates where they were violated (incl. by whom)?

[LexBaird]

I didn't phrase my question around Lincoln for good reason, but you brought him into the fold.

Ah. I thought we were discussing Lincoln in this thread, not all the other people who were President when the Union was in danger of breaking. So, which President did you have in mind?

[LexBaird]

I didn't phrase my question around Lincoln for good reason, but you brought him into the fold.

Ah. I thought we were discussing Lincoln in this thread, not all the other people who were President when the Union was in danger of breaking. So, which President did you have in mind?

Ironically, you state Lincoln didn't overstep the bounds of the USC, but you admit the suspension of the habeas corpus, incorrectly placing blame on the southern confederacy.

Well, they were in armed revolt, weren't they? Lincoln didn't just wake up one morning and decide to suspend the writ on a whim.

Let me remind you the Congress of the CSA voted twice to suspend, and failed to grant approval with Davis' final request. The difference? Congress was called to a vote.

The suspension of habeas corpus is an undelegated power in the Constitution. For further reading, see here: http://hometown.aol.com/gordonkwok/habeas_corpus.html

[stainlessbanner]

The suspension of habeas corpus is an undelegated power in the Constitution.

....And thus remains with the state. Now we are getting somewhere!

The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action."
--Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).

Thanks for the link. Bottom-line: Congressional approval is required to suspend the writ.

[LexBaird]

The writ is "the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state action." --Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 290-91 (1969).

Thanks for the link. Bottom-line: Congressional approval is required to suspend the writ

Case cites from 1969 do not pertain to actions in the 1860's. At the time, the power was undelegated to either the Executive or the Legislative; it was simply a power of the Federal govt. during time of insurrection. Lincoln, seeing a state of insurrection and without a Congress available in session, exercised this Federal power.

Justice Taney ruled after the fact that the power belonged to the Congress, but then again, Taney was about as unbiased as the current high court of Florida, and was ignored, seeing as how there were more pressing matters for the military to deal with. The matter wasn't really taken up until after the war. Bottom line, it's a moot point: as far as when Lincoln took the action, it was legal for him to do so. Afterwards, the war was in full swing and military law was in effect.

[ought-six]

And what, pray, is my revisionist spin on 140 year old history? Please advise. Oh, by the way, poor analogies are the most common form of straw man argument.

[LexBaird]

Maybe you should find out what you are saying before using terms incorrectly. It gives the impression you don't know what you're talking about.

From: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

Description of Straw Man:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern:

Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.

Examples of Straw Man

Prof. Jones: "The university just cut our yearly budget by $10,000."
Prof. Smith: "What are we going to do?"
Prof. Brown: "I think we should eliminate one of the teaching assistant positions. That would take care of it."
Prof. Jones: "We could reduce our scheduled raises instead."
Prof. Brown: " I can't understand why you want to bleed us dry like that, Jones."

"Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."

[GOPcapitalist]

There's no credible proof that Lincoln and Butler met in this time frame.

Well that's a lie. I've already documented that they met for you several times, Walt. Hay sent Butler a memo with Lincoln's endorsement on April 10 informing him that they would meet the next day. For an index containing the memo's location see the Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. 8, p 588.

Lincoln did nothing to support colonization after 1/1/63.

And that's also a lie. In November 1864 Lincoln went to his AG Edward Bates and asked for a ruling that would allow him to retain Mitchell as his colonization commissioner. As Bates' response of November 30, 1864 irrefutably indicates, the purpose of his retention was to continue the pursuit and enactment of colonization policies.

[WhiskeyPapa]

There's no credible proof that Lincoln and Butler met in this time frame.

Well that's a lie.

It's not a lie. The Butler story does not seem to appear in any of the major bio's of President Lincoln. No reputable historian gives it any credence. There is no mention of it in the Oates bio or the Donald bio. They are the recent major works on the man. The story is simply not credible.

Walt