Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Whites Only Scholarship

Dial_tone said:



Since we're on a board discussing, among other things, anabolic steroids I'm happy to report that a black man invented the first disposable syringe.

(Phil Brooks, patented in 1974)


If you want more the list is actually quite extensive.

http://inventors.about.com/cs/blackinventors/

I can't believe you dredged up that feel good site for black inventors. I'm not going to try to take away the rightfully earned achievments of any person, but that black inventor site is full of revisionist crap.
 
Pamela said:
I can't believe that one race should get more than the other race.


Believe it....it's been a fact of life since the day we got here.
 
ChefWide said:



My statements, when read and understood, have NOTHING whatsoever to do with my personal approval, nor did that ever come into the conversation.


We agree that hate groups and such should not receive money. That is easy. It is much more difficult to draw the line in other cases. The examples I used are obviously deserving of aid, but it points out the slppery slope you go down when you make statements like you did, saying that any federally-funded group must be open to all. It is not realistic.

Therefore someone has to make a judgement call in many cases. Who do you think that should be? I say keep it in the hands of the community most affected.

So if there is an organization dedicated exclusively to the betterment of young black boys in Michigan (there is), and the folks of Michigan don't have a problem with it, leave it alone.
 
ttlpkg said:


We agree that hate groups and such should not receive money. That is easy. It is much more difficult to draw the line in other cases. The examples I used are obviously deserving of aid, but it points out the slppery slope you go down when you make statements like you did, saying that any federally-funded group must be open to all. It is not realistic.

Therefore someone has to make a judgement call in many cases. Who do you think that should be? I say keep it in the hands of the community most affected.

So if there is an organization dedicated exclusively to the betterment of young black boys in Michigan (there is), and the folks of Michigan don't have a problem with it, leave it alone.

Fine. I see no need to call you out and demand that you stand by the limp examples you gave ('deserving of aid' how about the more accurate 'deserving of ridicule'), and I will take your obviously toned down demeanor and general pleasantness as a wave of a white flag of sorts.

Yes, it should remain in the hands of the community: not the black or white comunity but the small local governments that should be running most of this country. I will maintain, however, that if the charter of a given group does not specificly define its course as one that pertains only to a select target group (Young Black Kids Group: self explanitory) then exclusionary activities should not be funded by our collective tax dollars. Ex: Rockridge Boys Club, No Jews or Blacks need apply.

And see here, you:

It really pisses me off when you take the time to present well thought out replies. I prefer it when you are the knee-jerk neo-con talk show parroting jack boot wearing psychopath that your usual off the cuff posts paint you to be. I would appreciate it if you wouldnt make any more intelligent posts, of which I am not that worried, but should it become a habbit, I might actually start to like you and that would invalidate my entire past life. ;)

So please next time just answer with whatever pops into your head first, its much more fun that way.

(shhhh.... PLEASE dont tell anyone that we almost aggreed on this, my Liberal Cred would never recover)
 
ChefWide said:


I will take your obviously toned down demeanor and general pleasantness as a wave of a white flag of sorts.


Don't mistake civility for surrender. I feel I won this argument. At any rate, I think you equate conservative with angry, and that is not the case.

I enjoy debate and believe in what I say. I get enthusiastic sometimes, it shouldn't be taken offensively.

BTW, the most recent public displays of ideological expression in anger come compliments of ultra-libs Al Gore and Howard Dean.
 
ttlpkg said:


Don't mistake civility for surrender. I feel I won this argument. At any rate, I think you equate conservative with angry, and that is not the case.

I enjoy debate and believe in what I say. I get enthusiastic sometimes, it shouldn't be taken offensively.

BTW, the most recent public displays of ideological expression in anger come compliments of ultra-libs Al Gore and Howard Dean.


Wrong again and most unfortunately so.

You see, I called you out. Directly.

CHALLENGED you to back up your child like examples and make sense out of completely misunderstanding my post. You came back with some limp dishrag comment about your examples being in need of some 'aid'. Knowing that you would cower away from my slaughter of your sophomoric attempt at rejoinder, I suggested you make some concrete examples available, of which you had, in your words, 'many, many' at your immediate disposal, and you dished up some local boys club??!? You embarrass yourself.

After naming specifics that were obviously pulled out of the wrong hat, you fail completely to save face by using a flaccid generalization. You were challenged twice, and twice you turned tail and ran.

For a moment there, you almost earned my respect until you mistook my good natured attempt to spare you the further humiliation of calling attention to your cowardly and total avoidance of my direct challenges to you.

You sir, do not have the class or social presence to tip your hat when you have been bested.

Now, I say again as clearly as is possible: Come forward with your promised explanations and solid examples of real world programs as I demanded you do in the first place, or consider yourself a coward and, to opt an EF mot juste, ‘owned’.
 
Dial_tone said:



So in other words fairness is determined by whether it benefits YOUR group or not? Black scholarships are wrong but this one is okay because it helps a white person.

haha what?

Dial tone your making up teams in your mind.

Dont try and think about who i agree with in this thread.

But read what i said

I never said Scholarships for blacks were a bad idea or unfair.
 
I agree with scholarships for whites 100%.

I mean if there are scholarships for other skin colors, whites should be treated the same. united whitey college fund!! woohoo Im IN!!

also I thinnk I got post 100!!
 
Top Bottom