A Prom where no one dances - Page 2

Okay, (I'm really trying to piece this, not being sarcastic) so is your point that because there are hardcore racists who are pro-minority abortion (and therefore pro-choice) they must really be liberal?

I think it has more to do with the fact that I am white, most people I know are white and therefore I can more easily look from the white point of view.

No, the reason I posted that is that Mikah lumped in racists as pro-war and therefore pro-Republican sans attribution. Okay, he's probably right about that, I guess. However, hardcore bigots love abortion 'cause percentage wise it looks good to them. Thus, their position on that issue is more in tune with the majority of Democrats/liberals in this country. No real point beyond that, just pointing out that even race-haters can't be lumped into one political group offhand.

Edited for clarity... as always.

Ok guys, just take a little trip over to <a href="http://www.stormfront.org/" target="_blank">Stormfront</a> and tell me why those white supremists love President Bush so much.

The truth can be kinda ugly sometimes...

Here's an excerpt from a letter by David Duke to Pres. Bush:

I don't know why I'm coming in here to defend the conservative side, but...the statements "most conservatives are racist" and "most racists are conservatieves" are not interchangeable.

Is it work safe?

Shhhh... you'll wake "he who shall remain nameless."

Well, I guess that would depend on the people you work for. It proudly proclaims its white supremacy, but it's not pornographic...

Devin was the one who said most conservatives are racist. I'm the one saying most racists are conservatives. No one here is mixing up anything that I can see...

So unless you're employed by the Klan you might want to wait until after work.

FEMA is in desperate need of an audit.

Personally I don't think it should be FEMA giving relief to victims of disasters. That is something that should be a private undertaking.

Instead FEMA tries to block private organizations from helping out.

When I get home I'll dig an article up from back in the 90's about how FEMA "handled" things (and note nothing has changed since)

The Klan won't take me 'cause I've got bad blood. I also prefer Klan to start with a C, and they don't seem to like grammarians either.

I shall view it in the privacy of my own home!!!

Also, those white supremists were the one who organized the march in Florida opposing Gore's recount attempts during the last presidential election. They definitely support Bush.

Wise choice sir!

They must feel really stupid now, knowing that Bush is relying on a crack team of Blacks (Powell, Rice) and Jews (Wolfowitz) to advise him. Or maybe he's just been corrupted *gasp*.

I take it back. They must always feel stupid.

I guess only the hardcore bigots were stupid enough to fall for that Democratic hate ad that featured a black man dragged by a couple of Texan thugs.

.

Its funny you should mention this. I was watching Book TV awhile back and listening to one of the main screenplay writers for JFK&Nixon. I've forgotten his name now but he wrote a book about Stone. He's worked with John Kerry and is actively supporting his presidential run. Anyways during the Q&A he mentioned that the same pissed off cubans that were heavily involved in the bay of pigs deal (and its collapse failure) were the main organizers of that voting booth protest in Florida. It'd be interesting to see whats really the truth of the situation.

</strong>

I think that is the most disturbing website I have ever seen.

The German-esque font automatically makes it disturbing. Beyond that, taking truths and slightly twisting them makes it even more disturbing.

I think it is really sad that we focus so much on the Scott Peterson case (while a sad story) yet so little on the GA deal...

I know most here hate O'Reilly, but you have to give him credit (maybe even just a little) for trying to get this more attention. He has been on this, interviewing the superintendent, students, and anyone else he can from this school to get it in the headlines. Meanwhile, he has done very little with the Lacy Peterson story.

Huh?

You're adding 2 and 2 and getting 16.

Pro-choice has nothing to do with the unborn child, but rather with the choice of the being/Mother carrying it. And Pro-Choice is unconditional. I don't know of ANY pro-choice movements that say "Leave women's bodies alone!...ehhh, except in X, Y, and Z cases. Then, take on over, will ya?"

Someone who is "pro-choice" simply to support the death of children, and not for the freedom of every mother to be in control of how/if she gives birth to a conceived child is not Pro-Choice at all. They don't care about choice. They care about murder. And so it has nothing to do with the Liberal/Democrat/Woman's Right to Choose ethic of the Left.

Two different things. Same end result.

Just like Murder One and Self-defense resulting in the attacker being killed. Courts will let you walk on the second, but fry you on the first.

Why? Because they're two completely different situations demarcated by INTENT, not the mechanics and end result of the action. If I'm "deflecting" some great sin, then so does our entire justice system and way of life in America.

O'Reilly absolutely chewed up Neil Boortz and spat him out as leftovers when debating this issue last night on his TV show.

Naturally, Boortz was on the side of the segregationists... defending their "rights" to have a "private party" (you see, that's how they are trying to spin the all-white prom aspect... it was a "private party").

Ok, For what it's worth, here goes:

Not ALL conservatives are Klans men.
Not ALL conservatives are racists.
Not ALL conservatives are Bigots.
Not ALL conservatives "Hate".

All I ask is this. You clearly have your own opinion formed, and held, which is fine.

Please do not let the actions of a few, ruin it for everyone.

But this isn't about intent. This is about taking a position on an issue. Here's a much better example than the self defense-murder one: Some people support the death penalty because philosophically they see it as a deterrent, others support it because they like to see criminals fry. The reasoning is different, but the position they take is identical.

It's the same thing here. The resoning of the racists and the pro-choicers may vary, but they are united behind the law because it currently fits their philosophy. Simple as that. It has nothing to do with the mechanics of abortion; it has everything to do with the results.

No, they're not united. They support that abortions kill more minority children, percentage-wise, then white ones, but they do not support the right to choose itself.

As soon as those stats shift against white families, their support erodes, and they're against it, while the people who ARE actually pro-choice continue to support the right to choose no matter how it affects racewise.

So one group supports an ideal, the other supports a temporary side effect of said ideal. They're not united. They're not the same.

Are you saying that people who are currently pro-choice will never change their opinions? What if scientists discover a link between abortion and cancer? Would that not shift some people away from the pro-choice position?

As I said above, their support of this issue is the same, regardless of their reasoning. Both groups, pro-choicers and racists, are free to change their minds should some new data on the issue arise. But for now they share common ground. That's politics. Strange bedfellows.

No, No, No.

Whether their support is temporary or permanent is irrelevant.

They are not even supporting the same thing. The current glut of minority abortions is a SIDE EFFECT of the pro-choice movement. But it is not the movement, and is no to be considered when you ask someone whether they are pro-choice or not.

To use another analogy. Let's say you're a racist. You hate black people, but you love that a lot of young black males kill each other and that there is a distrustful relationship with Jews amongst a significant number of black people.

You like the side effects, but you do not support that which causes the side effects. In fact, all of that being destroyed would be ideal. The only thing you "support" is that one evil indirectly and negatively affects another evil.

Ask them, they'll tell you: "We don't like 'dem porch monkeys, but we sure love that they're dying so much and shooting each other. Hyuk Hyuk!"

Are they bedfellows with the NAACP? Do they support black people?

Of course not.

Same here. They don't support pro-choice anything. They support a temporary side effect of the pro-choice movement.

That's all.

They support the same LAW. LAW is the key here. Not personal opinion. LAW!!! Currently both groups are happy with the LAW, admittedly for differing reasons.

Are they happy with the Caucasian children it kills? No.

So how are they supporting the law? You show me an organized lobby of racists actively fighting against pro-lifers and their legal efforts, and then I could see what you're saying.

I don't support the laws that criminalize marijuana, but I have no problem with it taking down the actual heavy DEALERS it may indict. I just have a problem with the casual users it wrongly imprisons and harasses for using an intoxicating substance not significantly different than the ever-legal alchohol.

Same thing here. They don't support the law, but they have no problem with it taking down the minority unborn children that die in all of these abortions. They just have a problem with the white unborn children that could've been born to become Aryan leaders at some point as well.

They do support the law because it takes down minority "fetuses" (please don't call them children, as we all know that it's either a body part or "not alive"). Their reservations are irrelevant. Do other people not have reservations about things they support? Don't most supporters of the war still support the war even though they would prefer no "innocents" be killed?

Again, the reasons for their support are irrelevant. They both are currently in favor of Roe v Wade because it works for them. Simple as that. Anything else is obfuscation and nit-picking.

Fact: Currently, Pro Choice Americans support a woman's "right to choose," as embodied by Roe v Wade.

Fact: Currently, hardcore racists support a woman's "right to choose," as embodied by Roe v Wade.

</strong>

I said UNBORN children, but that's a different tangent.

They don't support the law. I just gave you a clear example of how someone can be against a law, but still enjoy a side effect of it. This is the same case.

</strong>

No. No. No.

They don't support the law. Like I said...when you show me them actively campaigning to see the law maintained, then you actually have a basis for your argument. But they merely enjoy a side-effect of a law they do not support. There's a difference. I've clearly illustrated it with my last analogy.

</strong>

True.

False.

Come now, Micah. Certainly there are SOME hardcore racist a-holes out there that support a woman's right to choose. Obviously not a majority, but they're out there for sure.

Sure. But as a majority, the hardcore racist culture as personified by Stormfront and similar organizations TENDS by a large majority to favor the hardcore extremist Christain POV, which is pro-LIFE. It is therefore fallacious to say that hardcore racists support the Pro-Choice movement.

Some may. An even larger number support the effect that it's currently having on minorities. But as a whole,....they go the other way.

Is there actually proof of white supremisist groups supporting abortion law (against what they would usually support) because it kills minorities, or is this more of a hypothsis?

Crossposted from another board as I tend to not frequent these kinds of sites.

Micah, you're talking about the mindset while I'm talking about reality. Both groups currently support the law becuase it works for them. Period. Any reservations that either group might have about it ethically have been put aside... for now.

Stupidity is sometimes not even funny.

I wonder if their opinion on this one matter effects their voting. From what it seems to me they are talking about using money & promoting abortion but I see little to think that they are going to vote against a conservative candidate just because he is against abortion. This seems more like rhetoric to me.

I don't know what point Burke is trying to make anyway.

Thanks, Burke, for poving that they do NOT support the law.

That's perfect proof. The extremely selective nature of the action advocated (none of which includes the advocacy of the law itself to legislators) illustrates eaxctly what I'm saying.

You could take the same rant, plug in straight-edge Neo-Nazis for Metzger and they could use the same rantings to justify running liquor stores in black neighborhoods with extremely low prices and large stock.

They're against liquor and it affecting them in any way. If it could be banned, they'd be fine with that. But as long as it's not, why not perserver into seeing that it destroys their enemies?

Much appreciated.

Complex motivations do not change the fact that they CURRENTLY SUPPORT THE LAW, regardless of their personal feelings or leanings. Even abortion rights advocates would probably prefer a world without the need for abortions. Preference and support of the law are not necessarily identical.

My original point was to note that racists, pegged as pro war by Micah and therefore Republican???, also tend to support a current platform of the Democratic Party, that is the right to abort. That is uncontroverted. Their motivations in the matter are irrelevant, as are their varying views of who should be aborted. Currently, they like abortion. So do pro-choicers. Politics makes strange bedfellows.

Last post.

I don't really believe they are bedfellows, though. Like I mentioned before, I doubt their support of abortion leads them to only vote for pro-choice candidates. Until they are active in voting in pro-choice polititians, it seems to me they aren't really supporting pro-choice much at all.

They can talk about it all that they wish - one can say "I support abortions" but if you do nothing about it, then you really are not. Talk like this is often used to 'rile the troops'.

We'll agree to disagree, then. I'm not going to get in some "last word" jab to entice you to continue.

Came across this quote today, and found it sad, true, and appropriate for this thread:

"There is a class of colored people who make a business of keeping the troubles, the wrongs, and the hardships of the negro race before the public. Some of these people do not want the negro to lose his grievances, because they do not want to lose their jobs. There is a certain class of race-problem solvers who don't want the patient to get well." Booker T. Washington, 1911

Booker T. Washington isn't exactly the best person to quote here.

His ideas about civil rights amounted to having black people work shit jobs and work them well, therefore eventually gaining the respect of white america.

More prominant civil rights leaders like W.E.B. DuBois basically threw away Washington's theories.

Pardon my outrage, but what THE FUCK does this rather ridiculous quote about black people have to do with Georgians planning a WHITE ONLY prom or racists who may or may not support abortion?

I'm trying to figure out how/why the subject of abortion entered this discussion in the first place since it has NOTHING to do with that this thread was originally about, which is about this stupid Whites-Only Prom. You guys went on with that angle (southern conservatives, abortions, racists, etc) for far too long. Grifter's odd quote is just part of the derailment.

Its sad and disturbing that shit like this still happens. Youd think that by now integration would be for sure. I guess those racists will never learn.