PROP 209
DAL
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> To clear up this issue concerning Affirmative Action.
>
> It cannot be said that that all those voting for Proposition 209 are
> racists, but it can be said that every White Supremacist, White
> Seperatist, Klan Member, Aryan Nations member, Skinhead, Neo-Nazi and
> individual racist in America not only sure as Hell would vote the same
> way, but are all dancing in the street and drinkin champagne over the
> outcome. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT. Yeah ya do...
>
> The bottom line on this issue that can only be refuted by semantic
> drool, is that those who wish to end Affirmative Action want to see
> what will be the unargueable result of the matter, less Black faces in
> government jobs, less black faces in colleges and less black faces in
> middle/upper management employment. And that is the damn truth of this
> matter and we all know it. Yeah we do...
> ---
>
> While Political Correctness concerns nonjudicial, moaning and groaning,
> Conservative Correctness concerns the click of safeties and jail cell doors.
> -----------------------------
> Conservatively Incorrect - http://www.c2.org/~ccrj/
>
Affirmative action was only meant to be a temporary measure to correct
past injustices. It is obvious that it has long since outlived it's
usefulness, as well as harmed those that it was intented to help.
The longer affirmative action is allowed to continue, the harder
reality will hit those taking advantage when it is discontinued.
Really if you look at programs such as affirmative action, it boggles
the mind to think that the government can sponsor such inherintly racist
programs. But then again congress supports the black caucus. Does
the white caucus sound racist? Well how about the black caucus then?
Rack Jite
Tim Reed
Rack Jite wrote:
>
> To clear up this issue concerning Affirmative Action.
>
> It cannot be said that that all those voting for Proposition 209 are
> racists, but it can be said that every White Supremacist, White
> Seperatist, Klan Member, Aryan Nations member, Skinhead, Neo-Nazi and
> individual racist in America not only sure as Hell would vote the same
> way, but are all dancing in the street and drinkin champagne over the
> outcome. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT. Yeah ya do...
>
> The bottom line on this issue that can only be refuted by semantic
> drool, is that those who wish to end Affirmative Action want to see
> what will be the unargueable result of the matter, less Black faces in
> government jobs, less black faces in colleges and less black faces in
> middle/upper management employment. And that is the damn truth of this
> matter and we all know it. Yeah we do...
> ---
No, the bottom line is this, racism in any form, whether it be against
the minority or the majority, is wrong. Making such a broad judgement
on so many people makes you as susceptable to the blinding effects of
racism as a neo-nazi. And what you claim to be truth is nothing more
than a screen of self rightous anger to hide your own racist tendencies
behind.
Rack Jite
Comes Rack Jite's conservatively incorrect reply to whatever it was
Tim Reed <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> was saying...
*Rack Jite wrote:
*>
*> To clear up this issue concerning Affirmative Action.
*>
*> It cannot be said that that all those voting for Proposition 209 are
*> racists, but it can be said that every White Supremacist, White
*> Seperatist, Klan Member, Aryan Nations member, Skinhead, Neo-Nazi and
*> individual racist in America not only sure as Hell would vote the same
*> way, but are all dancing in the street and drinkin champagne over the
*> outcome. AND YOU ALL KNOW IT. Yeah ya do...
*>
*> The bottom line on this issue that can only be refuted by semantic
*> drool, is that those who wish to end Affirmative Action want to see
*> what will be the unargueable result of the matter, less Black faces in
*> government jobs, less black faces in colleges and less black faces in
*> middle/upper management employment. And that is the damn truth of this
*> matter and we all know it. Yeah we do...
*> ---
*
*No, the bottom line is this, racism in any form, whether it be against
*the minority or the majority, is wrong. Making such a broad judgement
*on so many people makes you as susceptable to the blinding effects of
*racism as a neo-nazi. And what you claim to be truth is nothing more
*than a screen of self rightous anger to hide your own racist tendencies
*behind.
Its often very hard to tell a looneytarian from the Klansman. :)
---
Tim Reed
As long as you're making personal attacks why don't you call me a fat
ass too?
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Its often very hard to tell a looneytarian from the Klansman. :)
...so if Dave Dahlman suffers from that particular mental inability, so must
everyone else, apparently, according to his, er, logic.
Looks like Tim's got you pegged from the start -- so what you gonna do, you
45-year-old punk? Whine to his sysadmins at OU because he's being mean to
you?
--PLH, and people wonder why I occasionally pedal by Dahlman's house to give
him the one-finger salute...
Rack Jite
Comes Rack Jite's conservatively incorrect reply to whatever it was
*--PLH, and people wonder why I occasionally pedal by Dahlman's house to give
*him the one-finger salute...
Whats to wonder, yer the Internet Squealer, the Internet Stalker and
the Internet Loser... And proud as Hell of being all three!
Rack Jite
Comes Rack Jite's conservatively incorrect reply to whatever it was
*> Its often very hard to tell a looneytarian from the Klansman. :)
*
*As long as you're making personal attacks why don't you call me a fat
*ass too?
No, I think its that new Right-wing moron "KENT" who says he is short
one-legged fat guy. I figure there must be something seriously wrong
with you too, but I dont pretend to know what it is. But I bet youll
be telling us before long. :)
---
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 10:01:22 GMT, Tim Reed
>
> >No, the bottom line is this, racism in any form, whether it be against
>
> AA is not racism. That is a fact.
Racism in hiring practices is the favoring of one individual over
another because of the color of their skin. AA is the favoring of one
individual over another because of the color of their skin.
>
> > Making such a broad judgement
> >on so many people makes you as susceptable to the blinding effects of
> >racism as a neo-nazi.
>
> There is no judgement made. There is a leveling of the playing field.
>
> > And what you claim to be truth is nothing more
> >than a screen of self rightous anger to hide your own racist tendencies
> >behind.
>
> One may counter that claim with the theory that the racists are those
> who oppose legislation that uplifts minorities.
>
One may only make that claim by making a blanket judgement about large
numbers of people. Racists make a blanket judgement about large numbers
of people. You are subject to the same blind spots that racists are.
Please remove your blinders.
> Shawn Smith
> ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
> Black is beautiful when it is a slum kid studying to enter
> college, when it is a man learning new skills for a new job,
> or a slum mother battling to give her kids a chance for a
> better life. But white is beautiful, too, when it helps
> change society to make our system work for black people also.
> White is ugly when it oppresses blacks, and so is black ugly
> when black people exploit other blacks. No race has a monopoly
> on vice or virtue, and the worth of an individual is not
> related to the color of his skin.
>
> Beyond Racism: Building an Open Society [1969]
> Whitney M[oore] Young Jr. 1921-1971
> **************************************************
> On Fri, 07 Mar 1997 22:55:09 -0500,
> lan...@inil.com (Dick Lander)wrote:
> >"Nope. I avoided baby killing in Vietnam."
Patrick L. Humphrey
>Comes Rack Jite's conservatively incorrect reply to whatever it was
>pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey) was saying...
>*--PLH, and people wonder why I occasionally pedal by Dahlman's house to give
>*him the one-finger salute...
>Whats to wonder, yer the Internet Squealer, the Internet Stalker and
>the Internet Loser... And proud as Hell of being all three!
...or so one pretty pathetic little guy in the suburbs named Dave Dahlman
thinks, anyway. When you finally figure out that your opinion is nothing more
than that, give me a call.
--PLH, and if you try calling me at work, keep in mind that my employers have
ANI...
Patrick L. Humphrey
In article <33468472...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net> Sh...@dis.com writes:
>On 15 Mar 1997 14:20:11 -0600, pat...@io.com (Patrick L. Humphrey)
>wrote:
>>--PLH, and people wonder why I occasionally pedal by Dahlman's house to give
>>him the one-finger salute...
>Gosh Pat, and you wonder why we call you Pat the Stalker???
I -know- why a 35-year-old high-school dropout in the Austin area named
S. Shawn Smith does...because you faithfully do whatever your mentor Dahlman
directs you to do.
Get back to me when you've developed a personality.
--PLH, can we say, "eternity"?
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:41:57 GMT, rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack
> Jite) wrote:
>
> >Its often very hard to tell a looneytarian from the Klansman. :)
>
Now there's a surprise, yelling racists when you can't win with logic.
You probably listen to country music too.
Mr. Sam
>On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:41:57 GMT, rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack
>Jite) wrote:
>
>
>>Its often very hard to tell a looneytarian from the Klansman. :)
>
>Looneytarian is the PC word for Klansman.
And another one is "Shawn Smith".
--
Mr. Sam: member - talk.politics.misc troll patrol, Doctor Of Dittology,
Usenet Truth Detector, and the true voice of American conservatism,
serving humanity with talent on loan from God.
_____________________________________________________________________________
"Government is not a solution to our | "First of all, keep in mind that most
problem, government IS the problem." | of our problem is with working
-- R. Reagan. | Americans." -- B. Clinton.
_____________________________________|_______________________________________
Mr. Sam
In <33359a97...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>I got to tell you though I love this right wing angry white male
>tactic of trying to make the liberals look racist.
I don't believe it. You actually appreciate honest, down to earth, facts?
> This tactic has
>one draw back, it only works on real dumb people.
What you fail to mention is that it works on smart people also. It works
pretty much on everybody. Easily-observed evidence is easily understood by
most folks. It is, definitely, a drawback to some, since evidence refutes
liberalism.
> Be forewarned if
>you embark upon this journey, I will follow your every post and quote
>your slips of bigotry that will expose your agenda:
BUAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!! Oh, my, I'm sure he's quaking in his boots. As if he
gives a hoot what drivel you concoct in lieu of substance.
> bigots out to
>paint liberals as racist
Since when telling the truth has become a bigoted thing to do?
> to discredit the fight against racism.
That is not necessary, the liberals have completely discredited that already.
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:59:27 GMT, Tim Reed
> <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> >Sh...@dis.com wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sat, 15 Mar 1997 15:41:57 GMT, rack...@worldnet.att.net (Rack
> >> Jite) wrote:
> >>
> >> >Its often very hard to tell a looneytarian from the Klansman. :)
> >>
> >> Looneytarian is the PC word for Klansman.
> >
> >You probably listen to country music too.
>
> all assholes are mean people I don't like to be around. I never said
> all libertarians are looneytarians. Sort of like saying all leftist
> extremists are radical, is not a slur! Read harder.
>
> I do note that you consider all libertarians to be looneytarians. I
> also note that you think country music is bigoted. For shame.
I don't think that country music is bigoted, I was making an assumption
about your lack of taste.
>
> I got to tell you though I love this right wing angry white male
> tactic of trying to make the liberals look racist. This tactic has
> one draw back, it only works on real dumb people. Be forewarned if
> you embark upon this journey, I will follow your every post and quote
> your slips of bigotry that will expose your agenda: bigots out to
> paint liberals as racist to discredit the fight against racism.
I'm not a bigot, I don't think any particular race is inferior to
another, and I don't think any particular race or gender should be given
preference over another. The only way affirmative action should be
implemented is in entrance to college and it should be based on family
income not race. And if you believe that one race should be given
prefence over another then I'm sorry to say that you are a racist.
>
> I hope I am wrong about you, and your agenda.
Mr. Sam
In <332ef4f4...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 03:17:37 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>
>>In <33359a97...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>>
>>>I got to tell you though I love this right wing angry white male
>>>tactic of trying to make the liberals look racist.
>>
>>I don't believe it. You actually appreciate honest, down to earth, facts?
>
>Again, your "facts" are racist.
I just said that it is certainly a fact that you _are_ a racist. There's no
need to repeat what I said.
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 04:14:21 GMT, Tim Reed
> <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> >I'm not a bigot, I don't think any particular race is inferior to
> >another, and I don't think any particular race or gender should be given
> >preference over another. The only way affirmative action should be
> >implemented is in entrance to college and it should be based on family
> >income not race. And if you believe that one race should be given
> >prefence over another then I'm sorry to say that you are a racist.
>
> definition of racism, and discrimination are, or you have an agenda
> that is to falsely brand liberals via your incorrect definitions. I
> suggest you read a dictionary and some sociology texts. A poor white
> man may discriminate against a rich white man. That discrimination
> has nothing to do with a racist belief that one man is racially
> superior to the other. The same is true with AA, the white male is
> not discriminated because of a racist view of the white man. I know
> this analytical thinking is hard, but I am sure you can do it.
OK, lets clear this up. Discrimination based on skin color/sex organs
is wrong. Whether its done by the government or an individual.
> Note: you have just called MLK a racist! If that is not suspect then
> what is?
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Sun, 16 Mar 1997 10:58:00 GMT, Tim Reed
> <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Common mistake: discrimination is not dependent upon racism to exist.
> >> AA is not racism. That is a fact.
> >
> >Racism in hiring practices is the favoring of one individual over
> >another because of the color of their skin.
>
> that individual is superior due to race. What you describe above is
> discrimination.
So discrimination based on race/gender IS ok? Discrimination is merely
the tool of racists.
>
> >AA is the favoring of one
> >individual over another because of the color of their skin.
>
> That is discrimination. Here is what you are doing: a cat is a dog,
> and there is a cat so there is a dog. Your premise is dependent upon
> a definition that is false, thus your premise is false.
See above.
>
> >One may only make that claim by making a blanket judgement about large
> >numbers of people.
>
> No, no judgement is made. Collectively the white race agrees that to
> stop those whites who do discriminate racially, AA is a viable method.
Actually I don't think you can make this comment. AA is a uniquely
American practice (whites do exist outside of America). And secondly AA
was brought about by executive order (ie ONE man) not by congressional
vote.
>
> >Racists make a blanket judgement about large numbers
> >of people. You are subject to the same blind spots that racists are.
> >Please remove your blinders.
>
> Please read a dictionary and a sociology text. Here is a little
> essay, I wrote a year or so ago, that should clear up your confusion.
> ****************************************************
> You ask whom does AA discriminate against? And what are its
> objectives? First it discriminates against the white male. The white
> male (as a group not the actual individual perpetrator) who
> discriminates against minorities and women.
>
> Now, AA's objective is to balance the playing field. To allow
> minorities and women to ascend to employment positions that were out
> of reach due to gender and racial discrimination.
>
> So what the white male has and is currently doing is discriminating
> against women because of their gender, and against minorities because
> of their race. AA discriminates against the white male not because of
> a racist belief of superiority, nor a prejudicial belief that all
> white males are somehow inferior and should thus be discarded as
> potential employees. Rather, AA discriminates against the white male
> solely because he is the one who has the power, and he is the one who
> by abusing that power holds down women and minorities via
> gender/racial discrimination.
>
> This distinction between AA's discrimination and the white males
> racial/gender discrimination should not be mistaken for being one and
> the same.
>
> The logic employed by AA is used in many other areas of American law.
>
> This logic is also employed in capital punishment. In other words
> the tool used (AA) justifies the end (level playing field).
>
> My suggestion is to trade AA for the penalty of felony for
> racial/gender discrimination.
>
> Of course I wonder why people want to first dismantle AA before
> we have dismantled racial discrimination; that is my obvious
> question. If they are analogous, since they both discriminate,
> then surely AA is the lesser evil; because it fights an existing
> problem, whereas the white male's racial/gender discrimination is
> not used to counter an existing problem--it is the problem!
> **************************************************
>
> Again, my definitions are backed up by the sociology community and
> English dictionaries. You have the right to go against all this and
> pretend your incorrect definitions are correct. However, when one
> such as yourself chooses to ignore all the universities of the world
> and all English dictionaries, then you look a bit foolish, a bit
> extremist.
>
> #############################
> affirmative action
>
> —n. Action taken to provide equal opportunity, as in admissions or
> employment, for minority groups and women.
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary
> #############################
> affirmative action n : an active effort to improve the employment or
> educational opportunities of members of minority groups and women
>
> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> #############################
> ra·cism
>
> (rÄ´sÎz' m) —n. 1. The notion that one's own ethnic stock is
> superior. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on racism. rac´ist n.
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary
> ##############################
> racism \ra-si-zem\ n : a belief that some races are by nature superior
> to others; also : discrimination based on such belief racist \-sist\
> n
>
> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> ##############################
> dis·crim·i·na·tion
>
> (dÎ-skrÎm' -nÄ´sh n) —n. 1. The act of discriminating. 2. The
> ability or power to see or make fine distinctions; discernment.
>
> The American Heritage Dictionary
> ##############################
> discriminate \dis-kri-me-nat\ vb -nated; -nating 1 : distinguish,
> differentiate 2 : to make a difference in treatment on a basis other
> than individual merit
>
> The Merriam-Webster Dictionary
> ##############################
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:34:08 GMT, Tim Reed
> <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> >Sh...@dis.com wrote:
> >>
> >> <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >I'm not a bigot, I don't think any particular race is inferior to
> >> >another, and I don't think any particular race or gender should be given
> >> >preference over another. The only way affirmative action should be
> >> >implemented is in entrance to college and it should be based on family
> >> >income not race. And if you believe that one race should be given
> >> >prefence over another then I'm sorry to say that you are a racist.
> >>
> >> Tim one of two things is true: either you are confused with what the
> >> definition of racism, and discrimination are, or you have an agenda
> >> that is to falsely brand liberals via your incorrect definitions. I
> >> suggest you read a dictionary and some sociology texts. A poor white
> >> man may discriminate against a rich white man. That discrimination
> >> has nothing to do with a racist belief that one man is racially
> >> superior to the other. The same is true with AA, the white male is
> >> not discriminated because of a racist view of the white man. I know
> >> this analytical thinking is hard, but I am sure you can do it.
> >
> >OK, lets clear this up. Discrimination based on skin color/sex organs
> >is wrong. Whether its done by the government or an individual.
>
> Now you have it.
>
> Which leads us, society, to ponder: is it fair to use this means (AA)
> to get our desired end (level playing field)? I say, yes, but I would
> rather just make racial discrimination a felony.
That is much preferable to AA. And would probably get more results too.
Mr. Sam
In <333b0680...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 06:52:41 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>
>>In <332ef4f4...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 03:17:37 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In <33359a97...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I got to tell you though I love this right wing angry white male
>>>>>tactic of trying to make the liberals look racist.
>>>>
>>>>I don't believe it. You actually appreciate honest, down to earth, facts?
>>>
>>>Again, your "facts" are racist.
>>
>>I just said that it is certainly a fact that you _are_ a racist. There's no
>>need to repeat what I said.
>
>Thanks, we hate reading your racist "facts."
Barbra Streisand. To make a factual statement that you are a racist is not
racist in itself, but is, instead, undeniable truth.
Mr. Sam
> I say, yes, but I would
>rather just make racial discrimination a felony.
Splendid. Now, in order to practice what you preach, you should go down to
your police station, and turn yourself in immediately! Otherwise, it would be
pretty hypocritical for you to make that statement, while exempting yourself
from its application.
Tim Reed
Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 19:32:20 GMT, Tim Reed
> <tr26...@oak.cats.ohiou.edu> wrote:
>
> >So discrimination based on race/gender IS ok?
>
> get hurt, so if anything is it not as effective as we would prefer.
> However, there is not a lot being offered in its stead other than
> nutin.
>
> >Discrimination is merely the tool of racists.
>
> is guided by racism. AA discriminates against whites to level a
> playing field, not to oppress those if feels are inferior due to their
> racial make up.
Whether or not its guided by racists discrimination is wrong. Would it
be ok for a renter to rent to someone because of their skin color if he
wasn't a racist. But then that is the definition of a racist. Exactly.
I was wondering when MLK came out in favor of AA? Last I heard "black
men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestents and Catholics can all
come together and say free at last, free at last, thank God Almighty we
are free at last. Not "more black men than white men, more protestants
than catholics, more Jews than gentiles can come together and say...."
Mr. Sam
In <332f3d94...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:06:02 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>
>
>>Barbra Streisand. To make a factual statement that you are a racist is not
>>racist in itself, but is, instead, undeniable truth.
>
>Gosh, and not a single quote from you showing me saying anything
>racist???
Why should I go through the effort, when ample evidence exists in every one of
your posts?
> Oh, yeah, none exists because it is you who spouts racist
>trash.
I'll let you continue your conversation with a mirror.
Mr. Sam
In <33555408...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Mar 1997 00:11:26 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>
>>In <332f3d94...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 17 Mar 1997 23:06:02 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Barbra Streisand. To make a factual statement that you are a racist is not
>>>>racist in itself, but is, instead, undeniable truth.
>>>
>>>Gosh, and not a single quote from you showing me saying anything
>>>racist???
>>
>>Why should I go through the effort, when ample evidence exists in every one of
>>your posts?
>>
>>> Oh, yeah, none exists because it is you who spouts racist
>>>trash.
>>
>>I'll let you continue your conversation with a mirror.
>
>It is noted you have zero evidence to back up your lies.
BUAHAHAHAHA!!!!! You don't consider your own spew to me worth anything??
> I ,otoh,
>provice evidence for my claims.
Racism and bigotry hardly counts as evidence.
Mr. Sam
In <33313e3c...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
> As a black man get more educated the
>gap between his pay and his white counter part widens.
Don't be fooled. Shutztaffel Shawn is telling a lie, because he wants to
discourage blacks from getting an education. He prefers them dumb, stupid,
and gullible. That way, they wouldn't mind being lynched that much.
Mr. Sam
In <33429775...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Mar 1997 02:13:13 GMT, sam...@usa.net (Mr. Sam) wrote:
>
>>In <33313e3c...@netnews2.worldnet.att.net>, Sh...@dis.com wrote:
>>
>>> As a black man get more educated the
>>>gap between his pay and his white counter part widens.
>>
>>Don't be fooled. Shutztaffel Shawn is telling a lie, because he wants to
>>discourage blacks from getting an education. He prefers them dumb, stupid,
>>and gullible. That way, they wouldn't mind being lynched that much.
>
>Listen slowly dumbo, as a black man gets more educated he will make mo
>money.
Silly boy, nobody can make much money while being educated. Getting educated
_costs_ money. And, besides, while white folks usually have to pay the full
cost of higher education, blacks can take advantage of many racist affirmative
action programs. But they still won't make any money.
> However, due to white males' discrimination the gap between
>the black man's pay and his white counterpart's the gap will widen.
Wrong, as usual. Facts disagree with your blather. With equivalent levels of
educations, income levels are comparable.
>Gosh, you really need to read more.
No thanks. I have no desire to read your KKK literature.
> These facts are the result of
>bi-partisian research studies. Boy are you ill-informed.
The klan hardly counts as bi-partisan source of information.