(06-16-2021 11:52 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 11:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 11:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 11:09 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 11:02 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  For all your 'equity and justice' there, the explicit terms of the (race based)(racist) program dodges those.

Seriously, the terms of the program would allow a very middle class (perhaps multi-millionaire) person whom is black/chicano/oppressed de jure relief over a quadraplegic cracker dirt farmer.

How in the hell can you not blanch when you type the above in light of that?


Giving a leg up to someone is only providing an edge against someone if you have a zero sum world view.

If this program was permanent, and allowed black farmers to get loan forgiveness in perpetuity, I'd agree that it would create a situation where decades of black farmers not needing loans could allow them to undercut white farmers and eventually put them out of business. But I don't see that reasonably happening with a one time loan forgiveness when the USDA said it had been systemically discriminating against black farmers for decades!

Do you think the USDA should do nothing to attempt to fix the problems it may have created when it, admittedly, discriminated against black farmers?

BTW, I'm fine with the program being changed, or it being more focused, I just don't have this visceral reaction against it.

Then, if something does not 'give a knock down to a race', you would be agnostic to the same program but reserved only for whites. Sounds fun.

The point keeps growing that one side is for specific and explicit racial discrimination; and one isnt. Does that about sum it all up?

And the point keeps growing that one side lives in a fairy tail world where racism either doesn’t exist or it’s negative effects shouldn’t be addressed.

Does that about sum it all up?

If you want to discuss this, let’s discuss it. Or you can keep trying to score internet points with the conservative Quad gang.

And lad now turns to his ad-hom language and snotty responses. Filled with crappy false assertions to boot. Goody. I guess you dont remember the last time you used that ****** false option reply. Bummer. You cried at an amazingly high pitch at that result I thought you might have remembered. I would suggest easing up on the snotty language, false inflammatory premises nd options, and childish tone there, My Friend.

Fairy tale? It is no fairy tale that you and your side are invested in the world of reverse racism based on 'equity'. In fact, that seems to be the only solution in your all's mind.

The only fairy tale is the absolute inability to recognize racist acts by one side. They are magically explained away by ignoring definitions, and bringing up crap distinctions between 'giving one side an edge' and 'keeping one side down' and a whole slew of other specious distinctions. Funny that.

And I am discussing it. You focus on one line. And step away from addressing the more substantive points. Again, amazing that.

And an excellent avoidance to the fact that one side explicitly and enthusiastically champions racial discrimination today. Or are you going to make up some more **** that it really isnt racial discrimination based on some hodgepodge cluttering of distinctions really devoid of substance?

Dude, if you don't want snotty replies, don't start them.

You know exactly what you're doing by labeling me as a racist or supporting racial discrimination. It's a cheap ploy and doesn't further any conversation.

Please do tell what is "snotty" about the following?

Quote:Then, if something does not 'give a knock down to a race', you would be agnostic to the same program but reserved only for whites. Sounds fun.

The point keeps growing that one side is for specific and explicit racial discrimination; and one isnt. Does that about sum it all up?

Be specific. Also keep in mind that the alst paragraph is actually factual. Funny that.

Quote:You know exactly what you're doing by labeling me as a racist or supporting racial discrimination. It's a cheap ploy and doesn't further any conversation.

You support a program that is based entirely on racial discrimination. You defend it to the gd bunkers, in fact. And, you explicitly support the rationale behind the very explicit racial discrimination contained therein.

Have I missed something there?

So, yes, *you* in fact *do* support racially discriminatory actions. Not my issue that I am stating points of fact here. Not my problem that those are the issues and rationales *you* choose to defend. Or, is someone pointing a gun at your head and forcing you to do that?

And yes, perhaps you should own up to the fact that you support this racial discrimination. Or, maybe you are going to try and redefine that phrase for us for the here and now in the manner that you are so wont to do?

I mean, the entire gd program is aid based *exclusively* on belonging to one of a few predetermined races. How the hades is that *not* racial discrimination? Sorry that you are being called out for supporting it, and supporting the rather explicit racial discrimination that is actually occurring.

Maybe a sense of realization is coming to you on this....

As to the bolded, please tell me *anywhere* I have stated you are a 'racist'? If you cannot, i simply suggest you tone down the crying.

I actually think that you support a racist action in this case; one that is racist in a de facto and explicit manner. Cant really get around that issue.

But, I have studiously avoided calling you a racist -- I am actually on board with reserving the lad myopia of a unitary definition of that word as it pertains to people -- that is I agree that using that term in conjunction with a person that i share your view of that word. Correspondingly I havent noted or labeled you (or anyone here) as 'racist', so I would suggest that you take that charge off the table, My Friend.

But yes, you do apparently support racial discrimination as long as it flows in one particular direction. That seems pretty obvious at this point.