|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 7, 2020 7:04:36 GMT -8
ffs She was successful and therefore could not have been discriminated against? THAT is your logic? This exact post is why we have so many issues. Get a f%#*ing clue. No, you need the clue. I was around her every day when she later talked about how terribly she was discriminated against. She wasn’t. Spud, C’mon man. What is the real reason you question her truth? You act like you spent every waking minute with her and nothing could have taken place in her life without your knowledge.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jul 7, 2020 7:22:11 GMT -8
It was directed at me, and he is trying to make the point the president that signed the civil rights act was really a racist... he isn't wrong. He was more or less quoted in saying he "I'll have those N-words voting democrat for 200 years" when talking about the civil rights act. Another famous unproven, but likely given LBJ's history was "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again" More or less painting the picture the civil rights act was a matter of pragmatism for him, not altruism or moral correctness. It stands to reason too, as the original bill had glaring omissions that had to be corrected in later years. He was also an extreme womanizer (probably learned from the best in JFK) and was reputed to have a monster dong (hence the term "Johnson" for your penis) not only was he reputed to have a huge member but he like to show it to everyone, with our without permission. So, you know, mix in some sexual assault with your racism. I don’t know, man. I find the fact that you know so much about LBJ’s unit a bit troubling!! Ha ha LOL... it is one of those things you hear about somewhere at some time and you go...huh... and then I guess you don't forget it.
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jul 7, 2020 7:25:45 GMT -8
It was directed at me, and he is trying to make the point the president that signed the civil rights act was really a racist... he isn't wrong. He was more or less quoted in saying he "I'll have those N-words voting democrat for 200 years" when talking about the civil rights act. Another famous unproven, but likely given LBJ's history was "These Negroes, they’re getting pretty uppity these days and that’s a problem for us since they’ve got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we’ve got to do something about this, we’ve got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don’t move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there’ll be no way of stopping them, we’ll lose the filibuster and there’ll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It’ll be Reconstruction all over again" More or less painting the picture the civil rights act was a matter of pragmatism for him, not altruism or moral correctness. It stands to reason too, as the original bill had glaring omissions that had to be corrected in later years. He was also an extreme womanizer (probably learned from the best in JFK) and was reputed to have a monster dong (hence the term "Johnson" for your penis) not only was he reputed to have a huge member but he like to show it to everyone, with our without permission. So, you know, mix in some sexual assault with your racism. All you left out about the 1964 "Civil Rights Act" was that it had a higher percentage of Republican members voting in favor of it than Democrats (as was the case in most of the other Civil Rights Acts prior to and after). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 7, 2020 7:38:08 GMT -8
All you left out about the 1964 "Civil Rights Act" was that it had a higher percentage of Republican members voting in favor of it than Democrats (as was the case in most of the other Civil Rights Acts prior to and after). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_DemocratsThat statement is just another purposely misleading fact. It's like when slavery apologists say the civil war was fought for states rights. Yes, that's true. But they only say half the sentence. The complete sentence is the civil war was fought for states rights to have legalized slavery.
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 7, 2020 7:38:34 GMT -8
No, you need the clue. I was around her every day when she later talked about how terribly she was discriminated against. She wasn’t. Spud, C’mon man. What is the real reason you question her truth? You act like you spent every waking minute with her and nothing could have taken place in her life without your knowledge. It was a small town in 1981. That's all I can tell you. You'll have to take my word for it or not. I'm good either way.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jul 7, 2020 8:44:44 GMT -8
I'm not sure why you don't believe being both popular and discriminated against can't co-exist. Sure, it didn't hold her back, but it doesn't mean it didn't exist. I can think of lots of small things that would have been problematic, and I have no experience to even reference these things. Do you think anybody in two know how to cut her hair? Do you think any local store carried hair products that worked well for her? Do you think nobody ever said something completely racist just out of simple ignorance on the meaning/history of the terms? Do you think it would be easy to not look like anybody else around you in general? I suggest taking her at face value that you didn't see all that was going on, and some hurtful things were pretty likely to have occurred, internally or not. Yes, it's possible she was manipulating a narrative to help her career, and unfortunately that happens as well, but surely you believe it's plausible (even likely) that she had some things thrown her way? After all, being a popular girl in HS in general will draw the darts, even when there's no race-related darts to throw. I didn’t read past your first couple lines. The answer is, I was there every day. All day. I don't understand your motivation in sharing your story then. Message boards are not intended to be a collection of monologues, and so a post assumes an invitation for discourse. I assumed your statement of being 'disappointed and confused' was an invitation towards seeking understanding. My intent was not to push a specific alternative view, but rather just pose questions that could shed light on possible other views of why she said things that were disappointing and confusing to you. I am instead now interpreting you simply shared your story as anecdotal evidence that since this one person in your past falsely (in your steadfast view) claimed to have faced discrimination, and therefore we should all question if black people in general face discrimination - is that what you really want the takeaway to be here?
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jul 7, 2020 8:55:32 GMT -8
I didn’t read past your first couple lines. The answer is, I was there every day. All day. I don't understand your motivation in sharing your story then. Message boards are not intended to be a collection of monologues, and so a post assumes an invitation for discourse. I assumed your statement of being 'disappointed and confused' was an invitation towards seeking understanding. My intent was not to push a specific alternative view, but rather just pose questions that could shed light on possible other views of why she said things that were disappointing and confusing to you. I am instead now interpreting you simply shared your story as anecdotal evidence that since this one person in your past falsely (in your steadfast view) claimed to have faced discrimination, and therefore we should all question if black people in general face discrimination - is that what you really want the takeaway to be here? Noted.
|
|
|
Post by beaverstever on Jul 7, 2020 9:03:48 GMT -8
I'm bigoted and intolerant of a certain group of people. They're white college educated liberals who live on the West Coast. They're the most arrogant, condescending, prick, assholes , the American Union has ever produced. My favorite forum to gain insight on them, is called "Quora.com". It's a hodgepodge of legitimate information + hate propaganda directed against groups, these experts deem responsible for destroying our country. I'm comfortable "doing business" with working class people, no matter their race, gender, or religion. My attitude changes when dealing with aristocratic, credentialed , boneheads,who never listen but have all the answers. It's a flaw in my biological makeup, that I wish wasn't so, but probably won't change anytime soon.
I fully agree with the sentiment that anybody with a view that they have nothing more to learn are intolerable. However, I'm curious why you reserve that only to folks of a particular race + political bent/world view. I find people of any ilk intolerable that refuse to question anything about how they see things, and that certainly includes "working class" people. Perhaps you find them less tolerable they are less likely to be condescending, or is it simply because you generally more closely subscribe to their worldview?
|
|
|
Post by atownbeaver on Jul 7, 2020 9:20:03 GMT -8
I'm bigoted and intolerant of a certain group of people. They're white college educated liberals who live on the West Coast. They're the most arrogant, condescending, prick, assholes , the American Union has ever produced. My favorite forum to gain insight on them, is called "Quora.com". It's a hodgepodge of legitimate information + hate propaganda directed against groups, these experts deem responsible for destroying our country. I'm comfortable "doing business" with working class people, no matter their race, gender, or religion. My attitude changes when dealing with aristocratic, credentialed , boneheads,who never listen but have all the answers. It's a flaw in my biological makeup, that I wish wasn't so, but probably won't change anytime soon.
I fully agree with the sentiment that anybody with a view that they have nothing more to learn are intolerable. However, I'm curious why you reserve that only to folks of a particular race + political bent/world view. I find people of any ilk intolerable that refuse to question anything about how they see things, and that certainly includes "working class" people. Perhaps you find them less tolerable they are less likely to be condescending, or is it simply because you generally more closely subscribe to their worldview? It seems to me, he dislikes narcissists. and who doesn't? (except maybe other narcissists?) But I would also question why it is only limited to white west coast liberals? To be sure, I have run into quite a few "school of hard knocks" educated people that are arrogant, condescending, prick assholes who never listen but have all the answers. In particular the seem to always have a chip on their shoulder about not going to college and are always out to prove they are smarter than college educated people. The surest sign of intelligence is a person that understands they don't know everything. Truly smart people never stop learning.
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 7, 2020 11:29:20 GMT -8
I'm bigoted and intolerant of a certain group of people. They're white college educated liberals who live on the West Coast. They're the most arrogant, condescending, prick, assholes , the American Union has ever produced. My favorite forum to gain insight on them, is called "Quora.com". It's a hodgepodge of legitimate information + hate propaganda directed against groups, these experts deem responsible for destroying our country. I'm comfortable "doing business" with working class people, no matter their race, gender, or religion. My attitude changes when dealing with aristocratic, credentialed , boneheads,who never listen but have all the answers. It's a flaw in my biological makeup, that I wish wasn't so, but probably won't change anytime soon.
Way to be PROUD and own your own issues.
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Jul 7, 2020 12:30:19 GMT -8
Were you referencing:
Or .... Or something else, altogether?
I have ZERO problems with either quote. Why do you? Come on glove. You don't really mean this, do you? All women should have voted for Hillary? Period. The only voice we have, and therefore should only vote for are those of a middle aged white male?
|
|
|
Post by ag87 on Jul 7, 2020 14:46:26 GMT -8
If Abe Lincoln was born in 1960 there's an approximately 0% chance he would be affiliated with the party of donald trump
|
|
|
Post by TheGlove on Jul 7, 2020 15:45:53 GMT -8
I have ZERO problems with either quote. Why do you? Come on glove. You don't really mean this, do you? All women should have voted for Hillary? Period. The only voice we have, and therefore should only vote for are those of a middle aged white male? in the case of Trump v Clinton, yes women are voting against their interest if they vote for trump. I don't even know what your second sentence means.
|
|
|
Post by beavs6 on Jul 7, 2020 16:21:28 GMT -8
Come on glove. You don't really mean this, do you? All women should have voted for Hillary? Period. The only voice we have, and therefore should only vote for are those of a middle aged white male? in the case of Trump v Clinton, yes women are voting against their interest if they vote for trump. I don't even know what your second sentence means. If women should ONLY have voted for Hillary, then Black people should only vote for another Black politician...and so on. Really makes no sense and is really only a comment to inflame. I'm sure you will still claim to not understand and live in denial rather than admit to a not very well thoughtout comment.
|
|
|
Post by alwaysorange on Jul 7, 2020 16:47:57 GMT -8
I don't think okie states message board has this much commentary about their own coach
|
|