http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Obamaanimosity.jpg
This is what ignorant and spiteful people do when they think they are being clever: they take the words of a man who is being candid about how he felt as a bi-racial teenager, written in a book which describes the evolution of his thoughts about his own racial identity, and disingenuously present these words as though they are what he thinks today.

This is what ignorant and spiteful people do when they think they are being clever: they take the words of a man who is being candid about how he felt as a bi-racial teenager, written in a book which describes the evolution of his thoughts about his own racial identity, and disingenuously present these words as though they are what he thinks today.
this from the guy amused by a 13 y/o blooper reel he thinks is politically relevant?:confused:

I would say that a person living in a tribe in a land across the ocean from America who was kidnapped and transported, against his will, to America, who was stood up on the auction block and sold and then forced into a life of involuntary servitude has quite a bit more to differentiate his life from mine (and yours) than "the CHOICES" we both made.
That's not what I meant. That said, you're right - given his druthers, I can only imagine he'd be much happier in Africa.

The only thing that differentiates ANY of us from one another (and it's painfully obvious) are the CHOICES we, as people, make. That's it. Blacks have made shitty choices in life, and now, they're paying for 'em, but not without trying to charge everything that's befallen the black community on their 'White Guilt' MasterCard, exp. 02/2250. Feel free to obscure the argument all you want, but in the end, you're simply lying to yourself, and moreover, you're doing the black people who live here a major disservice. If my theory on this weren't true, then nary a successful black person would exist. It's a simple exercise in logic.Let's do "a simple exercise in logic" as you might call it:

Say you have a million white kids growing up in suburban America. They live in homes with two parents. They attend good schools in a safe environment. They have families where most of their relatives have graduated from college. They are surrounded by examples of success and by people who are committed to helping them achieve the same. I submit that many of these million white kids are fairly likely to become successful themselves.

But now take a million black kids. They live in the inner city. Most come from single-parent homes. They attend lousy schools in a dangerous environment. No one in their family has ever graduated from college. They are surrounded by examples of failure and all the temptations that will lead them to that very same end. I submit that many of these million black kids are fairly likely to become failures themselves.

Yes, individuals can overcome obstacles by making good decisions. But each individual comes from a different place and faces different obstacles -- and the array of decisions faced by an inner city youth are vastly different from those faced by his suburban counterpart. Who is more likely to make the good decisions we both agree will lead to success? I submit that out of the million white suburban kids you will find many more who make the good decisions than you will out of the million black inner city kids.

But then, that's just what simple logic tells me.

this from the guy amused by a 13 y/o blooper reel he thinks is politically relevant?:confused:I don't find the 'blooper' particularly relevant politically, but Bill O'Reilly unfortunately is. And I imagine he will spend a good deal of time over the next few months explaining to us the importance of 'character'. I'd like everyone to know ahead of time what a flaming hypocrite he is (in case they didn't know already).

Besides, it was funny. :)

(And I'd be happy to discuss this further in the other thread).

Let's do "a simple exercise in logic" as you might call it:

Say you have a million white kids growing up in suburban America. They live in homes with two parents. They attend good schools in a safe environment. They have families where most of their relatives have graduated from college. They are surrounded by examples of success and by people who are committed to helping them achieve the same. I submit that many of these million white kids are fairly likely to become successful themselves.

But now take a million black kids. They live in the inner city. Most come from single-parent homes. They attend lousy schools in a dangerous environment. No one in their family has ever graduated from college. They are surrounded by examples of failure and all the temptations that will lead them to that very same end. I submit that many of these million black kids are fairly likely to become failures themselves.

Yes, individuals can overcome obstacles by making good decisions. But each individual comes from a different place and faces different obstacles -- and the array of decisions faced by an inner city youth are vastly different from those faced by his suburban counterpart. Who is more likely to make the good decisions we both agree will lead to success? I submit that out of the million white suburban kids you will find many more who make the good decisions than you will out of the million black inner city kids.

But then, that's just what simple logic tells me.

Yes, that's logical.

And as such you can jettison, right now, any notion you may have had of the Conservatives understanding such a point.

Far too logical for them to grasp. It's like oil and water.

This is what ignorant and spiteful people do when they think they are being clever: they take the words of a man who is being candid about how he felt as a bi-racial teenager, written in a book which describes the evolution of his thoughts about his own racial identity, and disingenuously present these words as though they are what he thinks today.

If you honestly think he's changed his opinions for the better since then, you really haven't been paying much attention to his campaign, have you? The only thing he's 'evolved' into is an adult with a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his grandmother's race.

BTW, I didn't create the cartoon so you might wanna climb down off that pedestal and save your name-calling for people who post outright lies about their candidate's opponent. Quoting Obama's exact words isn't ignorant unless you consider exactly what he said.

SMW

This is what ignorant and spiteful people do when they think they are being clever: they take the words of a man who is being candid about how he felt as a bi-racial teenager, written in a book which describes the evolution of his thoughts about his own racial identity, and disingenuously present these words as though they are what he thinks today.

The racists will be coming out of the woodwork this year Sedan. (as we are already seeing)

We had better get used to it now.

The racists will be coming out of the woodwork this year Sedan. (as we are already seeing)

We had better get used to it now.
It's pretty cool that the democrats already have a built in excuse for losing the election to yet another unpopular republican candidate. :D

It's pretty cool that the democrats already have a built in excuse for losing the election to yet another unpopular republican candidate. :D

I couldn't agree more.

;)
SMW

I think we're arguing over nothing now Brooks. Just minor details. So I'm just going to drop it. :)
What, the AIDS thing?

If you made your final comment then here's mine.
If someone posits a theory with a component to it that renders it impossible, but you still understand why he would say it, then you have very low expectations of that person. That's prejudice.

Or you think he probably knows it's not true but he says it anyway. That's race-hustling.

1. There were no hundred years of continued persecution for the Jews, and Germany has already created many programs aimed at atoning for their actions,
2. I wonder how [Israel support] would compare to the amount of restitution granted to the black community?
1. Actually, the Jews in Balarus welcomed the Germans in the 1930's because the Russians had treated them so badly for so long. The persecution of Jews has gone on for well over a hundred years.

2. The amount you have actually paid out of your pocket to Israel is easily calculable because the US government can show you a number.
It's not so easy when looking at people who were passed over for jobs, promotions and college admissions because they were white.
Or who pay more tuition to compensate for those who are required to pay less.

There are many costs not quite so visible.

It's pretty cool that the democrats already have a built in excuse for losing the election to yet another unpopular republican candidate.

The Democrats are not going to lose this year. As Brooks has said they could run a corpse and it would win because the republicans have screwed up that badly.

I simply said to get used to hearing racism.

Say you have a million white kids growing up in suburban America. They live in homes with two parents. They attend good schools in a safe environment........
There is a baby-with-the-bathwater effect that everyone overlooks and no one seems to care about, but is just as discriminatory.

There are many african americans who don't come from that environment, and yet still receive those advantages (preferential treatment, affirmative action, etc.). This is at the expense of someone else (read: white) on an equal playing field who may deserve it more.

These are life-altering decisions in many cases. Unfairly losing a promotion affects where someone lives, where their kids can afford to go to college, etc.

If that person and his children and their children maintain resentment, anger, bitterness, AIDS theories, etc., it that something we should try to "understand"?

The Democrats are not going to lose this year. As Brooks has said they could run a corpse and it would win because the republicans have screwed up that badly.

I simply said to get used to hearing racism.

Famous last words.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/Rep.jpg

How can I avoid it if I have no clue wtf you're trying to ask?

It's pretty simple - is the statement "You are responsible for X, because you are black" a racist statement in your eyes? It's a yes or no question. There's nothing complicated about it.


How so? Other than cause a racial disparity in sports leagues, what real difference would it make in a social context?

If you think your athletic prowess doesn't affect other aspects of your life, you completely missed high school.

Social Darwinism is clearly racism, using the Oxford English Definition I listed. Not to mention wrong, because the genetic diversity between whites and blacks is practically nil, only resulting in negligible differences such as the one you mention. Chimpanzee subspecies living just in central and western Africa have higher levels of genetic diversity than do humans.

Then Reverend Wright is a racist by your standards, right? - he claims the differences between whites and blacks are caused by genetic differences.


I paraphrased it from the Wikipedia entry on culture, using the most general and non-academic sense.

I would question the legitimacy of this method, but it's besides the point. Let's just say I don't accept your definition of "culture."


How could one "eliminate" black culture? As disparities decrease, black culture will change to reflect it.

You're saying the disparities are the cause of cultural differences (I disagree, but besides the point) and you think it's our responsibility to remove those disparities - if that's what you really believe, then you're indirectly seeking the elimination of black culture.

Why are Asians different from whites? I could give a whole host of answers that don't have anything to do with culture or genetics. The geography of their landmass is one of them. History another. Diet a third.


Ah, thank you for bringing up more reasons why races are different from one another. Now, can't geography, history, and diet account for differences between blacks and whites as well?

That's why it's pointless to compare the disparities between Asians and Whites with the disparities between forcefully migrated black people with Whites. The situations are entirely different.

I don't see how you conclude it's pointless. You're saying whites have a social responsibility toward blacks until the disparities are gone (for 150 years or so?) - I'm questioning whether it's feasible to remove racial disparities because slavery is not the sole cause of differences between whites and blacks. Are you saying geography, history, diet, genetics, and culture do not have anything to do with differences between blacks and whites?

This is what ignorant and spiteful people do when they think they are being clever: they take the words of a man who is being candid about how he felt as a bi-racial teenager, written in a book which describes the evolution of his thoughts about his own racial identity, and disingenuously present these words as though they are what he thinks today.

Without consideration to the fact that you're behind this post, I agree that was a cheap shot.

There is a baby-with-the-bathwater effect that everyone overlooks and no one seems to care about, but is just as discriminatory.

There are many african americans who don't come from that environment, and yet still receive those advantages (preferential treatment, affirmative action, etc.). This is at the expense of someone else (read: white) on an equal playing field who may deserve it more.

These are life-altering decisions in many cases. Unfairly losing a promotion affects where someone lives, where their kids can afford to go to college, etc.


Aye. People like to pretend that all white people are rich and all black people are poor, and then assume those differences are the product of nothing but racism - a combination of fallacies that helps them justify their discriminatory practices.

Pastor Wright is no "product of his times"; instead, and you people REFUSE to realize it, he's a "product" of sermons;

Okay, then explain how there are 10 year olds who disparage the "evil" US.

This is exactly right.
The "product of his times" argument goes out the window when a new, much more youthful pastor replaces him and sounds no different. What was his life experience?
This new pastor didn't drink from different water fountains or sit at the back of the bus. But I'll bet he sat in the back of a very similar church for many years.

The Wright defenders started out with such things as:
"It would behoove us all to put the Reverend's words into their proper context instead of forming our opinions of him on the basis of 30 second sound bites as some in the media clearly wish us to do. .....
His character has been assassinated by a media that hasn't told us the whole story."
And now that we have more of the story, such defenses have all but disappeared.


Some ideas and some people are just indefensible, and you are not a bigot if you say so. This discussion is neither an attack nor a defense of the black race.

Some people on these threads have unnecessarily cited the fact that they know black people or have black friends who don't believe the way Wright does.
When will it occur to us that Wright and his ilk are the anomolies.
They are the freaks who do not represent their community at large.

Even among people Wright's age, these beliefs are unusual. It is not an age thing.

That's why these types of people will always be among us. It won't go away when the back-of-the-bus generation dies off. The resentment and paranoia will always have a voice and an will always find an audience.

There is a baby-with-the-bathwater effect that everyone overlooks and no one seems to care about, but is just as discriminatory.

There are many african americans who don't come from that environment, and yet still receive those advantages (preferential treatment, affirmative action, etc.). This is at the expense of someone else (read: white) on an equal playing field who may deserve it more.

These are life-altering decisions in many cases. Unfairly losing a promotion affects where someone lives, where their kids can afford to go to college, etc.

If that person and his children and their children maintain resentment, anger, bitterness, AIDS theories, etc., it that something we should try to "understand"?

Barack Obama addressed exactly that point in his race speech weeks ago.
His position was "Yes", that is something we should understand. His point was that we should seek to understand both sides, whether we agree with them or not.

The Democrats are not going to lose this year. As Brooks has said they could run a corpse and it would win because the republicans have screwed up that badly.

Just for clarity's sake, I have taken the liberty of highlighting the part of "my" idea I didn't say.

Then Reverend Wright is a racist by your standards, right? - he claims the differences between whites and blacks are caused by genetic differences.
POW!

Barack Obama addressed exactly that point in his race speech weeks ago.
His position was "Yes", that is something we should understand. His point was that we should seek to understand both sides, whether we agree with them or not.
Despite a recent claim by Napster, someone understanding your problem is not a remedy, doesn't give you back the job you should have gotten and doesn't solve anything.

But.... I will bet everyone nodded and thought it was an amazing thing to say.

Just for clarity's sake, I have taken the liberty of highlighting the part of "my" idea I didn't say.

Why deny the obvious?

Despite a recent claim by Napster, someone understanding your problem is not a remedy, doesn't give you back the job you should have gotten and doesn't solve anything.


Likewise, you will never solve anything if you don't understand it.
Understanding is the necessary and logical first step in finding a solution.

Likewise, you will never solve anything if you don't understand it.
Understanding is the necessary and logical first step in finding a solution.
Unfortunately it usually turns out to be the final step.

When Obama hints at the second step, I'll be all ears.

Unfortunately it usually turns out to be the final step.

Because people like yourself prefer to sidetrack the discussion.


When Obama hints at the second step, I'll be all ears.

Let me know when McCain has a first step and then you can talk.

Because people like yourself prefer to sidetrack the discussion.

Let me know when McCain has a first step and then you can talk.

Was this on purpose?

Your second sentence makes the first sentence hilarious.

Was this on purpose?

Your second sentence makes the first sentence hilarious.

Yes and I am glad you can tell when you are being mocked. :D

Brooks: "Unfortunately [understanding] usually turns out to be the final step.
Dhrama: "Because people like yourself prefer to sidetrack the discussion.

Let me know when McCain has a first step and then you can talk."
Too good.

Dharma: "Because people like yourself prefer to sidetrack the discussion."
MrBrooks: "Too good".

Nice to know you aren't running away from that.

It's pretty simple - is the statement "You are responsible for X, because you are black" a racist statement in your eyes? It's a yes or no question. There's nothing complicated about it.
Oh. Well then, if the entire black people had systematically enslaved and persecuted an entire at the same degree that white people had, then yes, the reverse would be accurate. You see, you are attributing my historical reasons for demanding that the white race take responsibility for its actions with racial ones. The reason whites have to take responsibility is for it's past actions. It has little to do with race, excepting that the reason whites did it in the first place was clear-cut racism. It just so happens that Europeans and Americans were largely white.

White people need to atone for their gross racism. Is atoning for racism racist? Apparently you seem to think so.

If you think your athletic prowess doesn't affect other aspects of your life, you completely missed high school.
'Cause we all know that four years in high school just completely dictated what you did for the rest of your life. :rolleyes:

Then Reverend Wright is a racist by your standards, right? - he claims the differences between whites and blacks are caused by genetic differences.
I daresay you're going to have to prove that, including the contention that he thinks black people are superior to white people.

I would question the legitimacy of this method, but it's besides the point. Let's just say I don't accept your definition of "culture."
Of course you don't. You want to believe that it's because of rap music, that blacks haven't just up and conquered the world yet. 'Do rags and stocking caps and sneakers and junk.

Whatever. The main point I'm making is the argument that culture is a reactive phenomenon. Let me give you a brief illustration.

In the early 1960s the Soviets were looking for a diamond source that was more reliable than the De Beers diamond cartel. After extensive prospecting, they located a pipe mine in Siberia. At the same time, Soviet scientists figured out how to synthesize diamonds for grit, allowing them to sell the Siberian diamonds. Over time, though, their production of synthetic diamonds was far and above anything they could ever mine, and they insisted on dumping these diamonds on De Beers, who was forced to buy them or face a market collapse.

Overnight, the marketing campaign De Beers used to build up the diamond market morphed. Previously, De Beers maintained that only a large diamond was fitting for the everlasting gift of love. Now, to soak up the Russian diamonds, they popularized smaller and multi-stone settings, which were labeled as gaudy. Now the focus was on the diamond's permanence, regardless of the stone's size. "A Diamond is Forever."

Seeing as the diamond engagement ring is a very large part of American wedding and romantic culture, this is not an insignificant event. The Russian glut of the diamond market directly influenced American culture. That's the way it is with culture. Sure, in some cases, the culture can create a vehicle for other kinds of change, but these cases are small, and don't have a whole lot of significance in the long run, compared to real changes in our environment. Culture is largely reactive, and the reason is because humans are adaptive by nature. We will quickly conform to new pressures and then create new culture to bring meaning to those pressures. Humans create culture in all kinds of settings, and its the change in the settings the prompts the change in culture. Nobody is so rigid that they would allow culture to dictate their settings, at least if they are, most people label them mentally deficient.

It is a mistake to look at culture and claim that the culture is a cause for the setting. Humans simply do not operate that way.

You're saying the disparities are the cause of cultural differences (I disagree, but besides the point) and you think it's our responsibility to remove those disparities - if that's what you really believe, then you're indirectly seeking the elimination of black culture.
Blacks will simply create new culture to reflect the lack of a disparity between them and white people, and the old culture won't simply go away, it will become the foundation for new culture as well as a historical reference. Plenty of people still listen to oldies, even though current realities create different kinds of music. Oldies are often remixed and covered to reflect the new sounds that are popular. It won't just go away.

Ah, thank you for bringing up more reasons why races are different from one another. Now, can't geography, history, and diet account for differences between blacks and whites as well?
Because they're largely the same. Blacks live in the same continent, as we do, and eat largely the same food. They participate in the same economy. They have access to mostly the same technology. It's the history that's different, the history I've been trying to argue is the exact reason for the disparities.

I don't see how you conclude it's pointless. You're saying whites have a social responsibility toward blacks until the disparities are gone (for 150 years or so?) - I'm questioning whether it's feasible to remove racial disparities because slavery is not the sole cause of differences between whites and blacks. Are you saying geography, history, diet, genetics, and culture do not have anything to do with differences between blacks and whites?
I believe that the plan of action I outlined above, will find the other reasons for the disparities and then labor to fix them. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with the black community that can't be fixed by everybody working together. I believe we have a duty to black people to accomplish this. Slavery and persecution might not be the only reasons, but it's plain to anybody willing to realize that it's only been fifty years since the persecution ended, that they're the largest ones.

Oh. Well then, if the entire black people had systematically enslaved and persecuted an entire at the same degree that white people had, then yes, the reverse would be accurate. You see, you are attributing my historical reasons for demanding that the white race take responsibility for its actions with racial ones. The reason whites have to take responsibility is for it's past actions. It has little to do with race, excepting that the reason whites did it in the first place was clear-cut racism. It just so happens that Europeans and Americans were largely white.

So, if I had a historical basis for saying "You're black, therefore you're responsible for X," it would not be racist?

White people need to atone for their gross racism. Is atoning for racism racist? Apparently you seem to think so.

Atoning is not racist. Attributing "gross racism" to all white people is.

'Cause we all know that four years in high school just completely dictated what you did for the rest of your life. :rolleyes:.

Now, Nappy, don't turn to exaggeration to deny my point. All I said is that athletic prowess affects who you are, it doesn't dictate who you are. That supports my contention that there are genetic influences on disparities between whites and blacks.

I daresay you're going to have to prove that, including the contention that he thinks black people are superior to white people.

No one said anything about whites or blacks being "superior"...

Here's the exchange as a reminder - (your quotes are in italics...I've edited for the sake of brevity, but everything is a direct quote)

. . . What could these disparities be attributable to, if not slavery and persecution?. . .

. . . genetic differences spring to mind.

How would you attribute any of the current situation to genetic differences? That's called Social Darwinism. . .

Social Darwinism is clearly racism . . ..

I argued that genetics is a cause of disparities between whites and blacks - you said that was Social Darwinism and therefore, racism.

Now, when I point out that Reverend Wright made the same argument I did, you change your tone - Why do you suppose that is, Nap?

Of course you don't. You want to believe that it's because of rap music, that blacks haven't just up and conquered the world yet. 'Do rags and stocking caps and sneakers and junk.

Sorry to disappoint your assumption, Nap, but I think the cultural distinctions of black Americans are far more profound than rap music or do-rags.

Whatever. The main point I'm making is the argument that culture is a reactive phenomenon. Let me give you a brief illustration.

You're basically making a chicken-before-the-egg argument. I can point to examples where culture has causative effects as well, but it's besides the point. The reality is that cultural differences are often spontaneous and independant of human intent. As long as cultural differences exist, there will always be disparities associated with those differences. Since cultural differences have existed since the dawn of human record keeping and show no signs of disappearing, it's likely there will always be disparities between races of people.


Blacks will simply create new culture to reflect the lack of a disparity between them and white people, and the old culture won't simply go away, it will become the foundation for new culture as well as a historical reference. Plenty of people still listen to oldies, even though current realities create different kinds of music. Oldies are often remixed and covered to reflect the new sounds that are popular. It won't just go away.

I would predict the same sort of evolution. The difference is that I think disparities will still exist because of cultural differences, whether it's new culture or old culture.

Because they're largely the same. Blacks live in the same continent, as we do, and eat largely the same food.

Ok, you can't seriously be saying this with a straight face!

In regard to geography, you damn well know that geographical cultural differences arise even when you are on the same continent. For example, I'm sure you know that a person from Atlanta has a different culture from someone in Conneticut.

In regards to food, seriously, Nap. Without resorting to fried chicken jokes, I would expect that you, as a native Atlantanite (?), damn well know that there are very distinct disparities in dietary preferences between whites and blacks.

They participate in the same economy. They have access to mostly the same technology. It's the history that's different, the history I've been trying to argue is the exact reason for the disparities.

But you can't change history, Nap. If you're saying history is the cause of all disparities between whites and blacks, then you're arguing that you cannot change the situation.

Slavery and persecution might not be the only reasons, but it's plain to anybody willing to realize that it's only been fifty years since the persecution ended, that they're the largest ones.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere - this seems like a change from your previous argument to me. My impression was that you thought slavery was the only reason whites and blacks are different.

I would still argue that residual effects from slavery/racism are lesser influences than culture, but I don't want to try to split atoms with little hard evidence on either side of the debate.

White people need to atone for their gross racism. Is atoning for racism racist?
Of course not. However, shouldnt you be guilty of something before you try to atone for it?

You asking people to make amends for someone else's crimes makes no sense to me, no matter how you try to dress it.






I believe that the plan of action I outlined above, will find the other reasons for the disparities and then labor to fix them. I don't believe that there's anything wrong with the black community that can't be fixed by everybody working together. I believe we have a duty to black people to accomplish this. Slavery and persecution might not be the only reasons, but it's plain to anybody willing to realize that it's only been fifty years since the persecution ended, that they're the largest ones.You are more then welcome to do everything in your power to atone for whatever white guilt you are carrying. However, it isnt logical to assume responsibility for your perceived duty or obligations in the way of assigning this guilt to others.

Let's do "a simple exercise in logic" as you might call it:

Say you have a million white kids growing up in suburban America. They live in homes with two parents. They attend good schools in a safe environment. They have families where most of their relatives have graduated from college. They are surrounded by examples of success and by people who are committed to helping them achieve the same. I submit that many of these million white kids are fairly likely to become successful themselves.

But now take a million black kids. They live in the inner city. Most come from single-parent homes. They attend lousy schools in a dangerous environment. No one in their family has ever graduated from college. They are surrounded by examples of failure and all the temptations that will lead them to that very same end. I submit that many of these million black kids are fairly likely to become failures themselves.

Yes, individuals can overcome obstacles by making good decisions. But each individual comes from a different place and faces different obstacles -- and the array of decisions faced by an inner city youth are vastly different from those faced by his suburban counterpart. Who is more likely to make the good decisions we both agree will lead to success? I submit that out of the million white suburban kids you will find many more who make the good decisions than you will out of the million black inner city kids.

But then, that's just what simple logic tells me.
So we're in agreement? :confused: :D

There were no hundred years of continued persecution for the Jews....
Correct - there were thousands. Those people built the pyramids, and now, they own Manhattan. Go figure.

Nappy, the Jews have been systematically persecuted and oppressed for far longer than the African Americans. Actually, for far longer than ANYONE in America. Have you heard of Biblical times, ancient Rome, Medieval Europe...? Hell, even modern Europe for that matter. I don't see anyone saying that all Europeans have to atone for the millennia of anti-Semitism and violence against Jews...

EDIT: Just to be clear, by modern Europe I'm specifically referring to the 17th through 19th and early 20th centuries, not Europe at this very moment.

So, if I had a historical basis for saying "You're black, therefore you're responsible for X," it would not be racist?



Atoning is not racist. Attributing "gross racism" to all white people is.



Now, Nappy, don't turn to exaggeration to deny my point. All I said is that athletic prowess affects who you are, it doesn't dictate who you are. That supports my contention that there are genetic influences on disparities between whites and blacks.



No one said anything about whites or blacks being "superior"...

Here's the exchange as a reminder - (your quotes are in italics...I've edited for the sake of brevity, but everything is a direct quote)



I argued that genetics is a cause of disparities between whites and blacks - you said that was Social Darwinism and therefore, racism.

Now, when I point out that Reverend Wright made the same argument I did, you change your tone - Why do you suppose that is, Nap?



Sorry to disappoint your assumption, Nap, but I think the cultural distinctions of black Americans are far more profound than rap music or do-rags.



You're basically making a chicken-before-the-egg argument. I can point to examples where culture has causative effects as well, but it's besides the point. The reality is that cultural differences are often spontaneous and independant of human intent. As long as cultural differences exist, there will always be disparities associated with those differences. Since cultural differences have existed since the dawn of human record keeping and show no signs of disappearing, it's likely there will always be disparities between races of people.




I would predict the same sort of evolution. The difference is that I think disparities will still exist because of cultural differences, whether it's new culture or old culture.



Ok, you can't seriously be saying this with a straight face!

In regard to geography, you damn well know that geographical cultural differences arise even when you are on the same continent. For example, I'm sure you know that a person from Atlanta has a different culture from someone in Conneticut.

In regards to food, seriously, Nap. Without resorting to fried chicken jokes, I would expect that you, as a native Atlantanite (?), damn well know that there are very distinct disparities in dietary preferences between whites and blacks.



But you can't change history, Nap. If you're saying history is the cause of all disparities between whites and blacks, then you're arguing that you cannot change the situation.



Okay, now we're getting somewhere - this seems like a change from your previous argument to me. My impression was that you thought slavery was the only reason whites and blacks are different.

I would still argue that residual effects from slavery/racism are lesser influences than culture, but I don't want to try to split atoms with little hard evidence on either side of the debate.
You're my hero, Lep! Well done. :)

So, if I had a historical basis for saying "You're black, therefore you're responsible for X," it would not be racist?
A real, historical basis, yes.

Atoning is not racist. Attributing "gross racism" to all white people is.
Racism is the cause for the slave trade. Pure and simple.

Now, Nappy, don't turn to exaggeration to deny my point. All I said is that athletic prowess affects who you are, it doesn't dictate who you are. That supports my contention that there are genetic influences on disparities between whites and blacks.
A very small influence, probably negligible.

No one said anything about whites or blacks being "superior"...
You did when you made the contention that Rev. Wright was racist according to the Oxford English Dictionary definition, which includes a belief in superiority. You have yet to show that Reverend Wright actually stated that genetics forms the differences, much less a belief in superiority.

Sorry to disappoint your assumption, Nap, but I think the cultural distinctions of black Americans are far more profound than rap music or do-rags.
Lovely. Which cultural elements are, in your opinion, perpetuating the gap between the races? I have a feeling that they're not in actuality cultural elements, but other manifestations of social behavior, such as economical activity bv. Gangs for instance, are not cultural in nature, any more than businesses are. There may be culture associated with gangs, just like there's culture associated with business and industry, but the culture reflects the setting.

As long as cultural differences exist, there will always be disparities associated with those differences. Since cultural differences have existed since the dawn of human record keeping and show no signs of disappearing, it's likely there will always be disparities between races of people.
This idea is ridiculous. Culture does not cause disparities between people, how could it? You mean to tell me that because the music we listen to is different, that accounts for why we make more money than they do?

I would predict the same sort of evolution. The difference is that I think disparities will still exist because of cultural differences, whether it's new culture or old culture.
Cultural disparities, sure, but the economic disparities would cease to exist. I still don't understand how you think that how the various art forms, symbols, meanings, moral systems, religions, that make up culture could cause economic disparities? I can see how individuals may choose to live according to cultures instead of gathering wealth, but society as a whole will generally choose to pursue greater economic wealth when it is able, and the black community is no exception.


Ok, you can't seriously be saying this with a straight face!

In regard to geography, you damn well know that geographical cultural differences arise even when you are on the same continent. For example, I'm sure you know that a person from Atlanta has a different culture from someone in Conneticut.

In regards to food, seriously, Nap. Without resorting to fried chicken jokes, I would expect that you, as a native Atlantanite (?), damn well know that there are very distinct disparities in dietary preferences between whites and blacks
Not gross differences. The American diet is largely meat, wheat, and sugar based, with a large variety in the styles. Americans have easy access to pork, beef, and chicken. They may cook these things differently, but what they're eating is mostly the same. And geographically speaking, whites and blacks populate the same areas. Some local areas have more of a concentration of one race from another, but the geography of the United States itself is not segregated as far as race is concerned.

But you can't change history, Nap. If you're saying history is the cause of all disparities between whites and blacks, then you're arguing that you cannot change the situation.
Probably the dumbest thing I've heard out of you yet on this topic. If I cut my toe, putting ointment will speed the healing process, even though I can't change the history of having cut my toe. Similarly, we can implement well-thought out social programs to alleviate the current problems the black community faces. For one thing, we need to be continually looking at new educational initiatives to provide to poor, mostly black districts. Many of the initiatives and programs we would develop for the black community would likely transfer very well into other poor areas that aren't racially divided. So everybody would benefit.

Okay, now we're getting somewhere - this seems like a change from your previous argument to me. My impression was that you thought slavery was the only reason whites and blacks are different.

I would still argue that residual effects from slavery/racism are lesser influences than culture, but I don't want to try to split atoms with little hard evidence on either side of the debate.
I am arguing that the primary reason, if not the only reason, for disparities between blacks and whites are resultant from the forced migration, enslavement, and the following hundred or so years of persecution. My feeling is that if blacks had simply migrated here normally, and were not subjected to abnormal ethnic persecution, they would have achieved parity with whites a long, long time ago. Black people did not come here to chase the American Dream, and their entire culture reflects that. Sure, many Africans emigrate here of their own freewill now, but black slave-descendants were never given that option, and were always treated as subhuman. The fifty years that have passed since the final state-sanctioning of racism died out simply hasn't been enough to turn their society around. Given some more time, and some help from their former oppressors, I believe they can. Easily. Left alone it will probably happen too, eventually. But I believe we owe it to the black people. And getting rid of the eyesores and criminal breeding grounds that is most poor black communities would do wonders for the national spirit, especially if we did it proactively, as part of national plan for growth.

If you honestly think he's changed his opinions for the better since then, you really haven't been paying much attention to his campaign, have you?Well, I have been pretty busy lately. The only thing he's 'evolved' into is an adult with a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his grandmother's race.Ah, I see ... Obama hates whitey.

Did it ever occur to you that a man running for political office might not want to write this in a book if he still felt this way today?BTW, I didn't create the cartoon so you might wanna climb down off that pedestal and save your name-calling for people who post outright lies about their candidate's opponent.I never supposed you had the talent to make the cartoon (besides, the creator's logo is clearly displayed). However, you did post it. And I think it's safe to assume you agree with the duplicitous message it conveys. So no, I directed my name-calling to the proper source.Quoting Obama's exact words isn't ignorant unless you consider exactly what he said.Hmm.

I think you just called yourself ignorant. :eek:

There is a baby-with-the-bathwater effect that everyone overlooks and no one seems to care about, but is just as discriminatory.

There are many african americans who don't come from that environment, and yet still receive those advantages (preferential treatment, affirmative action, etc.). This is at the expense of someone else (read: white) on an equal playing field who may deserve it more.

These are life-altering decisions in many cases. Unfairly losing a promotion affects where someone lives, where their kids can afford to go to college, etc.I think the days of race-based affirmative action are numbered. However, I think it could be supplanted with a class-based system that would avoid your "baby-with-the-bathwater effect". As long as blacks are still disproportionately poor they would still disproportionately benefit -- as would rural whites, for example -- but middle and upper class blacks would not.If that person and his children and their children maintain resentment, anger, bitterness, AIDS theories, etc., it that something we should try to "understand"?From Obama's Philadelphia speech:
In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/03/18/obamas_philadelphia_speech_on_1.html

So we're in agreement? :confused: :DOf course we are -- we just don't know about what. :@@: :)

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

I wonder if Obama will ever labor to do anything about all that. Probably not, lol. That's up to Congress, and they're so far into the pockets of corporate America to ever bother trying to fix it.

I think the days of race-based affirmative action are numbered. However, I think it could be supplanted with a class-based system that would avoid your "baby-with-the-bathwater effect". As long as blacks are still disproportionately poor they would still disproportionately benefit -- as would rural whites, for example -- but middle and upper class blacks would not.
Great idea!

Well, I have been pretty busy lately.Ah, I see ... Obama hates whitey.

Did it ever occur to you that a man running for political office might not want to write this in a book if he still felt this way today?I never supposed you had the talent to make the cartoon (besides, the creator's logo is clearly displayed). However, you did post it. And I think it's safe to assume you agree with the duplicitous message it conveys. So no, I directed my name-calling to the proper source.Hmm.

I think you just called yourself ignorant. :eek:

So, let me be sure I understand the rules here.

Even though Obama WROTE the book (in 1995), it's a cheap shot to quote from it.

Even though Obama's middle name is HUSSAIN, it's a cheap shot to mention that.

Even though Obama's wife said she'd never been proud of America until now, it's a cheap shot to mention her.

Even though Obama declined to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem... and chose not to wear an American flag on his lapel, it's a cheap shot to question his patriotism.

Even though Obama spent the last 20 years in a racist church, listening to a racist minister (who he claims is his 'mentor') say things like GOD DAMN AMERICA, it's a cheap shot to keep bringing that up because his supporters are tired of hearing it.

Even though Obama accused rural Americans of bitterly clinging to their guns & bibles while raising funds for his campaign and insulted his own grandmother in an attempt to dilute the hateful words of his minister, it's a cheap shot to hold him to what he's said in public forums.

You and the rest of Obama's supporters can continue to tiptoe around his history and shortcomings, but don't expect the majority of Americans to be so quick to sweep the FACTS about him under the rug.

IOW, if you want to handle your candidate with 'white gloves' go right ahead and do so. But please give those of us with a brain in our head the option of scrutinizing this man you want to elect POTUS.

I saw a quote from an undecided voter the other day who said, "I'm just sick of having white men in the white house. It's time we elected a black man."

Stupid is as stupid does... no matter what the skin color. Electing a person who's strongest asset is his ability to speak in front of large groups of people is STUPID, IMHO.

Um, I still have the right to express my opinion, don't I? Or maybe you'd rather sweep me under the rug along with all the negative aspects of your main man, Obama Hussain Barack.

Good luck with that.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/democrats_republicans_head_to_head_.gif

Nappy, the Jews have been systematically persecuted and oppressed for far longer than the African Americans.

Not in America.

So, let me be sure I understand the rules here.

Even though Obama WROTE the book (in 1995), it's a cheap shot to quote from it.

Even though Obama's middle name is HUSSAIN, it's a cheap shot to mention that.

Even though Obama's wife said she'd never been proud of America until now, it's a cheap shot to mention her.

Even though Obama declined to place his hand over his heart during the national anthem... and chose not to wear an American flag on his lapel, it's a cheap shot to question his patriotism.

Even though Obama spent the last 20 years in a racist church, listening to a racist minister (who he claims is his 'mentor') say things like GOD DAMN AMERICA, it's a cheap shot to keep bringing that up because his supporters are tired of hearing it.

Even though Obama accused rural Americans of bitterly clinging to their guns & bibles while raising funds for his campaign and insulted his own grandmother in an attempt to dilute the hateful words of his minister, it's a cheap shot to hold him to what he's said in public forums.

You and the rest of Obama's supporters can continue to tiptoe around his history and shortcomings, but don't expect the majority of Americans to be so quick to sweep the FACTS about him under the rug.

IOW, if you want to handle your candidate with 'white gloves' go right ahead and do so. But please give those of us with a brain in our head the option of scrutinizing this man you want to elect POTUS.

I saw a quote from an undecided voter the other day who said, "I'm just sick of having white men in the white house. It's time we elected a black man."

Stupid is as stupid does... no matter what the skin color. Electing a person who's strongest asset is his ability to speak in front of large groups of people is STUPID, IMHO.

Um, I still have the right to express my opinion, don't I? Or maybe you'd rather sweep me under the rug along with all the negative aspects of your main man, Obama Hussain Barack.

Good luck with that.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/democrats_republicans_head_to_head_.gif

It's basically called - Bein*" IN THE TANK" - fer the guy.
I'm glad states like West Virginny don't done knowed about
puttz'n black guys in some tank like Losters at Wall*Mart.
Is All.





* Metaphor for Carnival dunking tank { throw a baseball at a disk,
the person sitting in the tank falls }Being " in the tank " is a way
of expressing how someone or ones are willing to have pot shots
taken and get all wet on behalf of signing-on for another.
Not to be confused with Boxing slang for - throwing a fight -.

Not in America.
since the 1st one got off a boat.

Electing a person who's strongest asset is his ability to speak in front of large groups of people is STUPID, IMHO.

Something even stupider would be electing a person whose only asset is that he's "a good old boy you'd like to have a beer with" whose Daddy was president.

Something even stupider would be electing a person whose only asset is that he's "a good old boy you'd like to have a beer with" whose Daddy was president.

As usual, FT, your facts are a little twisted. The person I voted for in the last two elections was a veteran, previous owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the governor of Texas.... among other things.

Good try, though. Desperation looks good on you.

:lolhit:
SMW

Not in America.
So lemme get this straight - only we possess the ability to turn entire groups of people into losers, eh? That's interesting, and not to mention, really deep.

Something even stupider would be electing a person whose only asset is that he's "a good old boy you'd like to have a beer with" whose Daddy was president.

Or electing someone who is a celebrity based upon being shot down and held captive.

Or electing someone who is a celebrity based upon being shot down and held captive.

You know, Dhrama... I never thought I'd run across anyone MORE un-American than FT in this joint, but your constant attacks on McCain's military service have enabled you to surpass him in that department.

You're a no-balls coward hiding behind a monitor... then hiding behind an ignore button. I'm sure your mama must be very proud. However, you make me sick.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/liberals-1.jpg

You know, Dhrama... I never thought I'd run across anyone MORE un-American than FT in this joint, but your constant attacks on McCain's military service have enabled you to surpass him in that department.

You're a no-balls coward hiding behind a monitor... then hiding behind an ignore button. I'm sure your mama must be very proud. However, you make me sick.

http://i156.photobucket.com/albums/t33/texrose752/liberals-1.jpg
it's all he's got.:thumbs:

Or electing someone who is a celebrity based upon being shot down and held captive.
never mind that he's been devoted to public service his entire adult life:rolleyes:




and at his age, that's no small feat:thumbs:

never mind that he's been devoted to public service his entire adult life

so you are saying he is a career politician.

so you are saying he is a career politician.

the biggest difference between John McCain, and the current Democratic field is that McCain has done something else with his life besides run for office....unless you want to include Obama's failed law practice, and Hillary's commodities trading, which i don't think you'd want to get in to:bike:

As usual, FT, your facts are a little twisted. The person I voted for in the last two elections was a veteran, previous owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team and the governor of Texas.... among other things.

Good try, though. Desperation looks good on you.

SMW

As usual your facts are completely fucking twisted. The person you voted for in the last two elections was a veteran who went AWOL, the previous owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team who screwed the taxpayers out of millions in the sweetheart stadium deal and the governor of the state with the largest volume of air pollution in the nation, where your hero B*sh supported a voluntary emissions program for grandfathered industrial plants that were exempted from pollution control since 1971 ... among other things.

Pathetic try, though. Hero worship looks as silly on you as it does everyone else who has swallowed this scumbag's incessant lies.

As usual your facts are completely fucking twisted. The person you voted for in the last two elections was a veteran who went AWOL, the previous owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team who screwed the taxpayers out of millions in the sweetheart stadium deal.....
Hmmmm - where are the indictments, I wonder?

Hmmmm - where are the indictments, I wonder?

oh my gawd Prae... dont you know the rightwing cabal owns everything... judges,media,even the air???? they cant indict the prodigal son!

oh my gawd Prae... dont you know the rightwing cabal owns everything... judges,media,even the air???? they cant indict the prodigal son!
Well, as for your allegations, that's mighty convenient now, isn't it?

Well, as for your allegations, that's mighty convenient now, isn't it?

ummmm.... my post was sarcasm. my gosh I hope you didn't get me mixed up with free thinker..... he's your opponent in this thread. I was just the peanut gallery. Me and you are fighting two doors down on the left on the pro/anti immigration thread.:lolhit:

1. Brooks: If that person and his children and their children maintain resentment, anger, bitterness, AIDS theories, etc., it that something we should try to "understand"?
Sedan: From Obama's Philadelphia speech:

a. Obama: Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition.
b. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends.
c. Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing,

1. I was more curious about how the people here felt about it.

a. Is it slightly possible that people weren't quite so enamored of Jimmy Carter any longer?
There's a certain condescension in assigning negative reasons to Republican wins. I also loved the claim that Republicans took over congress in 1994 due to "angry white men".

b. What is "exploitation" in this case?
Should certain truths not be discussed.

c. This post was in response to my asking about the legitimacy of a white person being angry if his job goes to a lesser qualified african american who did not grow up disadvantaged, thus affecting his family's life and future.
When those situations occur, it is not the fault of corporations or lobbyists.
I think he is out of touch in this particular instance.

DF: "Nappy, the Jews have been systematically persecuted and oppressed for far longer than the African Americans.
Dhramatic: "Not in America."
What a great point, Dhrama.
I think when she was hinting at the same point when she said "Biblical times, ancient Rome, Medieval Europe....modern Europe for that matter."

Too subtle perhaps.

What a great point, Dhrama.
I think when she was hinting at the same point when she said "Biblical times, ancient Rome, Medieval Europe....modern Europe for that matter."

Too subtle perhaps.

Nice catch Captain Obtuse.
She specifically said "African Americans". You even quoted it. :rolleyes:

By the way, the Africans were slaves in Biblical times too, Einstein.

Along with everybody else.

Hmmmm - where are the indictments, I wonder?
with his irrefutable proof!! (in his head)

Nice catch Captain Obtuse.
She specifically said "African Americans". You even quoted it. :rolleyes:

By the way, the Africans were slaves in Biblical times too, Einstein.

I gather if she said African Americans in Biblical time,you wouldn't
feel the need for a correction.
Bein so brainwashed by Political Correctness,an all.
Gotcha !

oh my gawd Prae... dont you know the rightwing cabal owns everything... judges,media,even the air???? they cant indict the prodigal son!

Are you seriously going to deny that the Bush Administration has politicized the justice department and the judicial system with right wing activist judges?

That stretches credulity way past breaking.

Along with everybody else.
you got that right-the Irish had gold for the Vikings to plunder because of slave trading, then the Vikings got in the game themselves.

It's pretty cool that the democrats already have a built in excuse for losing the election to yet another unpopular republican candidate.

The Democrats are not going to lose this year.......they could run a corpse and it would win because the republicans have screwed up that badly.

You vastly, and I do mean vastly, underestimate the ignorance and gullibility of the Amuurican Public.

Not only can they elect another Republican, given the choice they have they probably will.

I know far too many people who --even if they did have enough brain cells to rub together to recognize what an abysmal fucking failure B*sh and the Repukelicans have been over the past eight years-- would never vote for anyone whose skin is black.

It is truly hilarious watching the Democrats commit a very slooooooow form of political suicide over this election; they seem determined to nominate a black person whose father was a Muslim, whose middle name is Hussein, and whose preacher of 20 years once angrily shouted *"God Damn America!"* in a sermon. It is almost impossible for me to imagine a human being on the planet more poorly positioned to win a presidential election.

You vastly, and I do mean vastly, underestimate the ignorance and gullibility of the Amuurican Public.

Nope. I am simply looking at the voter turnout. (http://elections.gmu.edu/Voter_Turnout_2008_Primaries.htm) :)

GOD DAMN AMERICAPlease explain, SMW.

Why do you hate America?

Please explain, SMW.

Why do you hate America?

I know,that is yer little attempt at Post-Haste Humor.
I don't suppose you were trained in the art of bellylaughs,
pre-toilet training.

Nice catch Captain Obtuse.
She specifically said "African Americans". You even quoted it. :rolleyes:

I don't understand your point then.
Napster's original statement was "There were no hundred years of continued persecution for the Jews, and Germany has already created many programs......." which is not true.

To which DF replied "Nappy, the Jews have been systematically persecuted and oppressed for far longer than the African Americans." which is correct, when comparing 400 years to thousands.

To which you responded "Not in America".

Yeah, I missed that. I was a victim of one of your famous side-tracks.
Since the historical discussion of Jews didn't involve America, I should been more aware of the irrelevancy of bringing America into the discussion.

My bad.

Are you seriously going to deny that the Bush Administration has politicized the justice department and the judicial system with right wing activist judges?

Justice department - yes. Judicial system - no.

... dont you know the rightwing cabal owns everything... judges,media,even the air????

They may not own everything, but they certainly control it.


...they cant indict the prodigal son!

They are not going to indict anyone who is instrumental in maintaining the Corporatist system (IOW, the massive profits they are realizing through robbing the dimwitted Public) of governance they've put in place, no matter what crimes that person commits.

_______________________

The predatory, racist, imperialist strategy of the U.S. of A. is based on a philosophy in which the Corporation is god, and in which so-called “free markets” are protected by the CIA and the military in order to promote huge Oil and Defense industry interests. America uses CIA subversion, its superior weapons of mass destruction and threats of war to bully the rest of the planet into submission.

They are not going to indict anyone who is instrumental in maintaining the Corporatist system .....The predatory, racist, imperialist strategy of the U.S. of A. .....“free markets” are protected by the CIA .....America uses CIA subversion,
I would never say "if you don't like it, leave" because a country this great can easily absorb its share of whining puppies, but I honestly just don't understand why you'd remain here.

Justice department - yes. Judicial system - no.

You are forgetting the hundreds of the partisan judicial appointments Bush made that corrupted the judicial system.

You are forgetting the hundreds of the partisan judicial appointments Bush made that corrupted the judicial system.

Oh I am? As opposed to the completely non-partisan judicial appointments Clinton made? Bush has appointed conservative judges. Clinton appointed liberal judges. Neither equals corruption.