SCOTUS outlaws race as college admissions factor

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

Ok this is clearly what I'm talking about. Again, repeat after me. Separating people into these different groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. Do you agree or disagree? Do you REALLY think Kamala Harris or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have been picked if they were not black? Of course not! In fact, Biden was very open about the fact he wanted to select these positions based primarily on skin color and gender. Given these statements were first made while on the campaign trail, it absolutely qualifies as pandering.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/joe-biden-potential-vp-pick/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-potential-nominees-ketanji-brown-jackson-leondra-kruger-michelle-childs-candace-jackson-akiwumi/

I actually do care very much about minority communities. My concern is that this trendy, rewritten definition of racism infantilizes this particular group by encouraging perpetual victimhood and as a result, actually takes them back decades.

Well after centuries of having justices picked because they were white I have no problem with judges getting favored because they bring a different experience and pov to the court.

So you're openly racist against white people. Got it. Let's go back to kindergarten to learn something you must have missed- two wrongs don't make a right. No discrimination on the basis of race really should mean no discrimination on the basis of race.

[Anonymous]

Personally, I had some prejudice against gay people, Blacks and Jews growing up. I said some stupid things but never actually treated anyone unfairly to the best of my memory.

Now I am changed throughout. I think God commands us to love everyone and treat them according to the Golden Rule.

People do change their views on equality once they become more educated and have more real world experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Personally, I had some prejudice against gay people, Blacks and Jews growing up. I said some stupid things but never actually treated anyone unfairly to the best of my memory.

Now I am changed throughout. I think God commands us to love everyone and treat them according to the Golden Rule.

People do change their views on equality once they become more educated and have more real world experience.

And a corollary of that is that people also can sometimes not understand how their thought processes are undergirded in racism, even when they think they are "doing good" for minorities. Like the former Biden campaign/Obama foundation staffer that tweeted that the affirmative action decision was a travesty and that "no black person will be able to succeed in a merit-based system".

This is racist and she doesn't even know it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

Ok this is clearly what I'm talking about. Again, repeat after me. Separating people into these different groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. Do you agree or disagree? Do you REALLY think Kamala Harris or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have been picked if they were not black? Of course not! In fact, Biden was very open about the fact he wanted to select these positions based primarily on skin color and gender. Given these statements were first made while on the campaign trail, it absolutely qualifies as pandering.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/joe-biden-potential-vp-pick/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-potential-nominees-ketanji-brown-jackson-leondra-kruger-michelle-childs-candace-jackson-akiwumi/

I actually do care very much about minority communities. My concern is that this trendy, rewritten definition of racism infantilizes this particular group by encouraging perpetual victimhood and as a result, actually takes them back decades.

Well after centuries of having justices picked because they were white I have no problem with judges getting favored because they bring a different experience and pov to the court.

So you're openly racist against white people. Got it. Let's go back to kindergarten to learn something you must have missed- two wrongs don't make a right. No discrimination on the basis of race really should mean no discrimination on the basis of race.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

Ok this is clearly what I'm talking about. Again, repeat after me. Separating people into these different groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. Do you agree or disagree? Do you REALLY think Kamala Harris or Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson would have been picked if they were not black? Of course not! In fact, Biden was very open about the fact he wanted to select these positions based primarily on skin color and gender. Given these statements were first made while on the campaign trail, it absolutely qualifies as pandering.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/08/28/politics/joe-biden-potential-vp-pick/index.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-potential-nominees-ketanji-brown-jackson-leondra-kruger-michelle-childs-candace-jackson-akiwumi/

I actually do care very much about minority communities. My concern is that this trendy, rewritten definition of racism infantilizes this particular group by encouraging perpetual victimhood and as a result, actually takes them back decades.

Well after centuries of having justices picked because they were white I have no problem with judges getting favored because they bring a different experience and pov to the court.

So you're openly racist against white people. Got it. Let's go back to kindergarten to learn something you must have missed- two wrongs don't make a right. No discrimination on the basis of race really should mean no discrimination on the basis of race.

Racism is about power. When white people have been subjugated for centuries get back to me about racism.

Your fantasy that the US somehow switched to being a colorblind country where everyone had the same chance is just that, a fantasy. There was no Ground Zero when it comes to racism disappearing in this country. There was no point when the US suddenly became a not-racist country and the playing field was leveled for all. The reverberations of centuries of legal suppression of Black people and systematic racism will be felt for generations to come.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

A racist who implemented anti-racist legislation. Complicated, but he did good for the country. And we can celebrate his legislative deeds. Better than someone who calls himself the least racist person in the world but who rolls back gains for black Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

Thanks for admitting you haven't read Caro's biography. Read it and then get back to us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

Thanks for admitting you haven't read Caro's biography. Read it and then get back to us.

Read all of them. You’re not special.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

A racist who implemented anti-racist legislation. Complicated, but he did good for the country. And we can celebrate his legislative deeds. Better than someone who calls himself the least racist person in the world but who rolls back gains for black Americans.

Why are you soooooo obsessed with trump? Nobody is talking about Trump!

My goodness this man did a number on you all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

A racist who implemented anti-racist legislation. Complicated, but he did good for the country. And we can celebrate his legislative deeds. Better than someone who calls himself the least racist person in the world but who rolls back gains for black Americans.

Why are you soooooo obsessed with trump? Nobody is talking about Trump!

My goodness this man did a number on you all.

Yes unfortunately he did it all to this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Say goodbye to your gains among black voters, Republicans.

I don't believe that's the case. Progressives and racists believe the same thing-- that people are defined by their race and that people should be treated as members of groups rather than be evaluated for individual merit. They differ on what actions to take, but they both share the same foundational belief. I don't think most black people see the world this way, so I don't think this ruling will have an effect on black voting patterns. Also, they don't react well to Biden telling them that they aren't black, to him, unless they vote for him, etc, and surely he will say even more of this garbage during the campaign.

I wrote on this website about a decade ago that separating people into all these groups and favoring some groups over others is racism. In typical DCUM fashion, my post was deleted.

Also, Biden has some of the highest approval ratings coming from black voters. Why? The guy is clearly a racist as defined above and per prior statements, but they've largely bought into this rewritten definition (pandering?) coming from the left in which anything negative that happens to a person of color can ONLY be explained by "racism", end of story.

The guy who's "clearly a racist" has a VP who's female, black and indian, appointed the first black female justice to SCOTUS, is working on improving schooling and fixing infrastructure like replacing lead pipes in underserved historically black communities. You want to call it "pandering" as a deflection because the fact is, and history shows, you would have done NOTHING for those underserved communities.

DP. Have you heard of a man called LBJ?

Actions speak louder than words.

+1000. LBJ's actions in support of civil rights and ending Jim Crow and toward promoting the Great Society speak volumes and volumes more than him using the now-antiquated southern language he grew up with. The PP trying to suggest otherwise is clearly a complete and utter moron for not seeing that.

Here you go again trying to sanitize this man's legacy just because he is on your team. The man was a massive, raging racist. You would not grant such grace to someone on the other "team" and are showing yourself to be an unprincipled, unserious hypocrite. It's funny how you can so easily brush aside the pernicious and wildly racist underpinnings of many of his utterances, let alone his actions. You are the type to cancel someone nowadays for something they did 30 years ago and provide no quarter for those words or actions being a "product of their time", yet sit here trying to grant LBJ the very same get out of jail free card that you so loathe when it is marshaled in defense of your political enemies. Girl bye!

Biden's history of questionably racist commentary is well documented.

Would a "massive, raging racist" want to end racist Jim Crow regulations, end racial segregation and discrimination, and promote civil rights and equality for other races?

And if you came up with any answer other than "no" then it shows how you are either seriously dishonest or deeply confused about the fundamental underpinnings and concepts of racism.

And furthermore, stop making up fake accusations of who I would "cancel." - As we see right here it is in fact YOU who is trying to cancel LBJ, for using the 'n' word. Do not project your own nonsense onto others.

Yes, they would.

The same type who is a nakedly ambitious, power hungry political animal. The type that Lincoln said would either free slaves or enslave free men, in pursuit of their ambition, depending on the status quo ex ante. The kind that told civil rights leaders to "make me do it" with regard to critical civil rights legislation.

Contrary to your balderdash, I am not trying to cancel LBJ at all, merely pointing out the complex man that he was and not shying away from the power of personal ambition and political calculus to achieve things in this sclerotic town. Your belief in the sincerity of politicians is kinda cute.

Is that what you got from reading Robert Caro's LBJ biography? You HAVE read it, haven't you? If not, come back after you've read it to discuss this president.

Yes, LBJ was complex. He was not some pure hero without flaws. But he could have easily been ambitious in the opposite direction as a champion of segregation, and he was not. He didn't have to champion the Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act. He knew those would turn the south against Democrats but he did it anyway. He didn't have to decide his signature domestic policy was going to be a war on poverty, but he knew from experience teaching in Texas what real poverty was like and also the effect of systematic racism on poverty. Give me a flawed politician like Johnson whose legislative legacy is so impactful and improved the lives of countless Americans (especially those whose lives most needed improving) any day over some mythical pure hero who can't get anything done.

Yes, he was racist like so many whites of his generation and he doesn't need to be held up as a hero. But he at least had the courage to overlook his racist views to make the US a better country.

You just said the same thing using more flowery language.

Yes, he was racist. We know.

Are you glad that he signed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act?

[Anonymous]

Oh noes!!

Racism outlawed!!!