Winning (Page 4/7)
williegoat JUN 30, 04:29 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

was george a con in 64 ?

were his supporters con's


Wallace was a Democrat in 1964. He was also a Democrat in 1963, when that picture was taken, exactly 60 years and 19 days ago. I remember the incident, I was eight years old and living in Orlando. Politics was very important in my house and an almost daily topic.
MidEngineManiac JUN 30, 05:17 PM
Here is an idea...

How about you stop running YOUR life and business based on what somebody else thinks...IT'S not theirs to run, run your own.....AND...STOP trying to run theirs. <see how that works both ways ?>

And JUST what do you think the Declaration was all about ? AND the War of Northern Aggression ??

Humans are just too ****in stupid to shut up, myob and go about their own...

Crist, sometimes you sheep make me want to pull my hair out...

THINK FOR YOURSELF.

**** 'em and feed 'em fish.

WHAT THE FRUCK are you people afraid of ??

Say a word and riots will happen ?....**** sakes, Rittenhouse is a kid with more balls than 2 countries combined...So are a few Canadians. So are some Americans...

TAKE your world back.

George Carlin used to do 7 bad words you cant use on TV.....NOW, it's 1 million words you cant use on risk of death.

Want to rock ? lets go...

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-30-2023).]

MidEngineManiac JUN 30, 05:35 PM
Oh, yeh....Happy 4th gents ...

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/shorts/Z5EkcO2oQfY[/youtube]

Northern Michigan for neighbors.....huh...

You'll do.

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 06-30-2023).]

MidEngineManiac JUN 30, 05:54 PM
randye JUN 30, 10:17 PM

quote
Originally posted by fredtoast:


So you are saying that George Wallace was a "progressive liberal".


Please educate yourself. I am feeling embarrassed for you.





You already have established a documented and pronounced history here for failing to understand what others have written and consequently you comically misstate their point(s).

It is additionally an inescapable fact that those that urge others to "educate" themselves as much as you have on this forum are always possessed of an arrogance that far outstrips their own meager "education". Dunning and Kruger could use you as a glaring example of their work.

As far as your "feelings" are concerned, they don't mean a damn thing here and your "embarrassment" is best reserved for when, or if, your ratings bar appears.

[This message has been edited by randye (edited 06-30-2023).]

Patrick JUN 30, 10:49 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:

It is additionally an inescapable fact that those that urge others to "educate" themselves as much as you have on this forum are always possessed of an arrogance that far outstrips their own meager "education".



Ha, randye lecturing someone on "arrogance". What's that expression? "Takes one to..." Damn, it's escaped me momentarily.
ray b JUL 01, 02:42 PM

quote
Originally posted by williegoat:

Wallace was a Democrat in 1964. He was also a Democrat in 1963, when that picture was taken, exactly 60 years and 19 days ago. I remember the incident, I was eight years old and living in Orlando. Politics was very important in my house and an almost daily topic.



THE Q WAS

was george a con in 63/4
were the supporters con's no matter if demo or not

why can any con claim george
he was 100% your con

were the con's racist in 64 ?
82-T/A [At Work] JUL 01, 02:43 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

and when there are as many legicy's for all races as whites
''3
: a candidate for membership in an organization (such as a school or fraternal order) who is given special status because of a familial relationship to a member
Legacies, or children of alumni, are three times more likely to be accepted to Harvard than other high school graduates with the same (sometimes better) scores ''





By the way, I wanted to respond to this separately because I didn't quite understand what you meant at the time. I agree with you... I think "legacy" acceptances are lame. I don't agree with them. But unfortunately you cannot stop a school from doing this. For that matter, I think it's safe to say that the people who largely benefit from this are leftist elites from NYC/CHI/SF/LA/DC. Particularly... the political class as well.

I agree, these shouldn't be allowed... but there is no Federal law against it, and therefore, it's legal.

Furthermore, the only reason why it's illegal to have race-based acceptance is simply because, while the initial inception through Affirmative Action was to help shift racial injustice, it's become a situation where an overwhelming vast majority of well-qualified Asians (primarily) and whites are being intentionally disqualified BECAUSE of race. When you are able to prove that you're being discriminated BECAUSE of your race, then it becomes a civil rights violation, and as such... Affirmative Action has gone from something that was intended to be helpful, to something that's now hurtful.

You can still have historically black colleges, which among many other things in the case, was affirmed in the ruling of Brown vs. the Board of Education. You just could not be DENIED education based on your race. An HBCU may still exist, and a white person (or asian, or whatever) could still apply to it (and other races do go to HBCUs) there's just an emphasis on one race for the purpose of community.

All of this is more media misrepresentation. If I'm not mistaken, there are many states (including yours) which have already passed laws making Affirmative Action illegal. I've never been to USC Berkley or Davis... but those schools (or any college in California) are not allowed to hire based on race... cannot have quotas, or anything like that. It's been like that since the 90s. They're still diverse. I went to a Catholic University for my undergrad... and it's a school that's like 85% Hispanic. Granted, I'm technically Hispanic according to the definition... but most people make fun of me about it when I tell them because I'm like super white looking (my dad is Dutch, my mom is Argentine).

Anyway... there's a lot of people freaking out for literally no reason. This changes very little. Schools can still hire based on preference to hardship... but now it will have to simply be more merit based. The only thing I worry about is that colleges will create a whole new victim class where everyone tries to identify how much of a victim they are for getting into schools, rather than focus on their accomplishments on what they did to get where they are.


EDIT: to say... as a taxpayer, you certainly can force public universities in your state to stop allowing (automatically) "legacy" acceptances. Because those schools are funded by the state, so the state absolutely can make that a rule.

[This message has been edited by 82-T/A [At Work] (edited 07-01-2023).]

ray b JUL 01, 02:47 PM

quote
Originally posted by randye:
You already have established a documented and pronounced history here for failing to understand what others have written and consequently you comically misstate their point(s).

It is additionally an inescapable fact that those that urge others to "educate" themselves as much as you have on this forum are always possessed of an arrogance that far outstrips their own meager "education". Dunning and Kruger could use you as a glaring example of their work.

As far as your "feelings" are concerned, they don't mean a damn thing here and your "embarrassment" is best reserved for when, or if, your ratings bar appears.



was george a con in 63 ?

simple Q not con dares to answer

biased raters favor lying for the team
over truth

based on hurt feelings more then facts
ray b JUL 01, 02:58 PM
I attended all white schools in miami up to 65 when the high school was part integrated
and late spring summer and early fall school in Detroit that were about 50/50 before

we travel by car twice a year pre-interstate lots of 2 lane thru small towns in the south

try to spin I have no idea of racist or their evil or that they were all con's
sorry I lived it