Affirmative Action Banned!

My state (Michigan) has wisely followed in the foosteps of California and banned racist/sexist affirmative action programs in Michigan, that would have discriminated against people based on nothing but their gender or the color of their skin, all in the name of promoting equality.  

It passed by a pretty wide margin 58% - 42% of the vote.. or, another way of looking at it: 

2,137,574  ---  YES on stopping AA
1,552,459  ---  NO on stopping AA

Hopefully this'll spread like wildfire throughout the rest of the states. 

>>77
"And fuck you. I didn't do anything wrong either and I don't deserve to be discriminated against because of perpetuating negative cultural memes surrounding blacks and their intelligence. I am and was never a slave, a monkey, a nigger, etc. And the private sector- white owned or not- has no right to discriminate against me if I'm meritable."

LOL? But the government has the right to discriminate against ME if I'M meritable because I'm WHITE?

"This is the one instance "your people" are being discriminated against and it seems to me that you just can't handle what other races have had to put up with for the last hundreds of years.

Too fucking bad, I say."

Finally you just come out and say 'too fucking bad, we are discriminating against you.' 

>>77
"And again, I ask you what is the problem with this in the face of growing racial disparity."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=disparity

Simply because there is a disparity in income between a given two races does not mean discrimination is occurring.  Considering how poorly african-americans have been doing on standardized tests, iq tests, etc, both of which have strong connections to success, I wouldn't say that their making of less money is evidence of discrimination at all.  Take a look at their test scores.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cranial_capacity-IQ.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Students_who_scored_600_or_more_on_the_math_SAT.gif

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2003_SAT_by_race-ethnicity.png

"What is the problem with this when someone as equally meritable as some random white dude is given a job?"

Because discrimination is discrimination, and it doesn't matter whether you discriminate against a white person or a black person.  The color of skin should not be considered at all.

>>80

Save this for stormfront.org, fuckbag. I think you're forgetting a little thing called the "The Race Thread". Remember how Anonymous and I gangraped you like a vietcong whore?

And it's funny; that in the end it all comes back to arguments used by white nationalist toilets who's only accomplishment so far in this eternal discourse on race is getting...you guessed it! ^_^ - violently shat on.

Thread over.

>>44
"Because I am no more an advocate of discrimination for advocating property rights than an advocate of drug legalization is an advocate of drug useage for advocating drug legalization."

owned

>>83
"Save this for stormfront.org, fuckbag."

Convincing rebuttal.

"I think you're forgetting a little thing called the "The Race Thread". Remember how Anonymous and I gangraped you like a vietcong whore?"

Nope.

"And it's funny; that in the end it all comes back to arguments used by white nationalist toilets who's only accomplishment so far in this eternal discourse on race is getting...you guessed it! ^_^ - violently shat on."

Oh really? See >>1.

>>83
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/dict.asp?Word=nationalist

nationalist - one who loves and defends his or her country

nationalist - an advocate of national independence of or a strong national government

There are 100 places at a renowned university course and 1000 applicants. The quota is set at 10%. Of the top 100 achievers in the entrance exam 91 are white. You are black and come in place 105 with 101-104 being white.

If you knew this and had any self-respect would you allow the authorities to replace the white in place 100 with yourself even though the white did better than you in the entrance exam?

>>87
YES BECAUSE I HAVE NO MORALS OR SELF-RESPECT AND WANT TO BE ABLE TO BREAK THE LAW WHENEVER IT SUITS ME!

>>81

1. Racial Disparity. Racial Disparity. Racial Disparity. Racial Disparity. Racial Disparity. Racial Disparity.

2. Jim Crow. Racial Disparity. White privilege. Jim Crow. Racial Disparity. White privilege. Jim Crow. Racial Disparity. White privilege.

"Finally you just come out and say 'too fucking bad, we are discriminating against you.'

Why should I care about you when all you do is selfishly look after only yourself? You're the enemy. I care about making the socially weak more strong. If the role of black man and white man were reversed, I would feel the exact same way as I do now. Despite being black, I would shout to the heavens about how it's not morally right to not empower a people we have a history of exploiting when we KNOW that it would exemplify belief in freedom, democracy and a more objective and ethical society.

Is this really so impossible for someone like you to understand?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTR-Y4L3kg

lmfao

>>88
>>89
How much do you weigh? I bet you are quite overweight and spiteful.

Habbo mods are racist. They ban black people and they especially hate rich black people in 3 piece suits and who express their identity by growing large afros. I agree with affirmative action if it is used to ban habbo hotel and their evil racist practices. Just because one nigra blocks the pool it doesn't mean ALL nigras are pool blockers.

>>89
"Why should I care about you when all you do is selfishly look after only yourself?"

I don't see how I am 'selfishly looking after only myself,' unless 'selfishly looking after only myself' means 'not wanting to be discriminated against because I have white skin.'

"If the role of black man and white man were reversed, I would feel the exact same way as I do now."

The 'role'? What 'role'? There is no separate 'role' for black men or white men. 

"Despite being black, I would shout to the heavens about how it's not morally right to not empower a people we have a history of exploiting when we KNOW that it would exemplify belief in freedom, democracy and a more objective and ethical society."

'We'? I didn't exploit anyone, and thus I don't have any moral duty to empower you.  This is capitalism.  If you want to become 'empowered,' go 'empower' yourself.  Work.

"Is this really so impossible for someone like you to understand?"

Is it really that hard for you to understand that race should not be a factor considered when applying for a position?

I don't see how I am 'selfishly looking after only myself,' unless 'selfishly looking after only myself' means 'not wanting to be discriminated against because I have white skin.'

This isn't about your white skin. This is about companies not hiring races other than white people. This is about putting an end to that privilege. AA says you can do whatever you want with your skin, but no longer will you be able to get hired over an equally meritable black person because of your skin color.

The 'role'? What 'role'? There is no separate 'role' for black men or white men.

Of course not. What I'm addressing is the history of that belief that continues to be perpetuated by people like you and >>3. That belief still effects people today and is a cause of racial disparity and white privilege.

You do understand that at one point, blacks were slaves and were denied basic civil rights, correct? You do read history, yes? Can you spell history, at least? You do realize that it was superiority and the greed of the private sector that made slavery possible in the FIRST PLACE, right?

'We'? I didn't exploit anyone, and thus I don't have any moral duty to empower you.  This is capitalism.  If you want to become 'empowered,' go 'empower' yourself.  Work.

People are trying to work, but companies keep on hiring whites even though there are equally meritable people of other races around. You're either with or against, I'm afraid. If you feel that you have no moral duty to empower those you exploit, then, in this case I'm afraid you aren't for equality, democracy, freedom or fairness.

Your belief in Capitalism has left you with a crippled morality. If effect, if you allow yourself to have advantage, when you know it's based on race, then you ARE the exploiter and you must be stopped.

>>94
"People are trying to work, but companies keep on hiring whites even though there are equally meritable people of other races around."

And if they had better services to offer than their competition, they would very likely be hired. 

"You're either with or against, I'm afraid. If you feel that you have no moral duty to empower those you exploit, then, in this case I'm afraid you aren't for equality, democracy, freedom or fairness."

I fail to see how being an advocate of racial or sexual discrimination makes you 'fair'.

"Your belief in Capitalism has left you with a crippled morality."

My morality is not only logical, it is consistent.  Thus, it is strong.

"If effect, if you allow yourself to have advantage, when you know it's based on race, then you ARE the exploiter and you must be stopped."

I don't think I have an advantage because I'm white.  In fact, before the affirmative action ban, quite the opposite was true.  I was at a *disadvantage* because I was white, due to racist practices involving applicants at various state-run universities in MI.  The passage of prop.2, the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative, which ended affirmative action, simply takes race out of the picture.

>>94
"You do understand that at one point, blacks were slaves and were denied basic civil rights, correct?"

Yes.

"You do read history, yes?"

Yes.

"Can you spell history, at least?"

Yes.  History.

"You do realize that it was superiority and the greed of the private sector that made slavery possible in the FIRST PLACE, right?"

Slavery is a violation of individual rights.  Had the people of hundreds of years ago had the respect for property rights that I have, slavery would never have been allowed, as it is an obvious violation of individual property rights.

A person's body is owned by that person.  It is their property.  To deny another person his property rights, even in the name of promoting equality or diversity, is wrong.

>>94
"AA says you can do whatever you want with your skin, but no longer will you be able to get hired over an equally meritable black person because of your skin color."

Translation:  'We are going to preferentially hire black people over white people now, based on nothing but the fact that one is black, and the other white.'

Racial discrimination.

Affirmative Action: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svTR-Y4L3kg

No one who opposes affirmative action is supporting discrimination, we are just saying you can't declare all white people to be racists without evidence. If a company is judging people by their raceinstead of their skills then they should be penalised, but I fail to see why whites who are not racist should shoulder the burden of whites who are racist just becuase they are less likely to be discriminated against. It's not as if whites don't care, if someone burglarises my neighbour I don't care if the burglar did it because they are white or black or whatever, I want that asshole in jail as much as people who are more likely to be burgled.

>>95

"And if they had better services to offer than their competition, they would very likely be hired."

The problem here isn't whether or not they are meritable. They are. The problem are companies that hire a white person because they are white; when there are other non-whites who are just as meritable if not MORE than the white canidate.

In this case, "better services" are taken to mean "being white". Affirmative Action prevents discrimination in those cases where being white is considered a commodity.

My morality is not only logical, it is consistent.  Thus, it is strong.

Sounds to me like you're trying to describe that 3 inch of slimey worm you fuck your sister's pimpled ass with everynight. "Thus, it is strong." HAHA OH WOW. White Weeaboo Anonymous makes Anti-Chan L. O. L.

Slavery is a violation of individual rights.  Had the people of hundreds of years ago had the respect for property rights that I have, slavery would never have been allowed, as it is an obvious violation of individual property rights.

Ok, Mr. Shit-for-brains. Let's take your delusion for face value, then. Slavery was ended primarily on the grounds of property rights...lol.

Ok, yeah, no it wasn't. Back then the south considered people as property and banning slavery was a violation of THIER property rights. I find it hard to believe that back then, you would've been fighting for black people's property rights. Judging by the posts you made I'm going to assume you are under the general belief that blacks are inferior; so yeah: You fails it.

No one who opposes affirmative action is supporting discrimination, we are just saying you can't declare all white people to be racists without evidence. If a company is judging people by their raceinstead of their skills then they should be penalised, but I fail to see why whites who are not racist should shoulder the burden of whites who are racist just becuase they are less likely to be discriminated against.

What burden, you fucking idiot? The burden of hiring a black person? I seriously don't get it. Can you seriously tell me how non-racist white business owners are effected by Affirmative Action? And how the hell do you know what all white people are thinking, anyway? CLEARLY there's a divide here, you're not understanding.

If you're not guilty of racism in your practices, then you'll have nothing to worry about. Affirmative Action isn't outside of your present hiring practices anyway. Stop acting as if AA is some kind of legislated attack on the white race. You sound more paranoid about race than anyone in this thread. 

What are you so concerned about? A person who isn't as meritable getting a job a meritable white person should've gotten? Well, I think there should be sub-policies in place that should insure that won't happen. If you still have a problem with AA; it's because a black being a hired over a white person just doesn't sit well with you.

Too fucking bad, Mr. Racist. Move to a place that isn't free and doesn't practice equality and democracy.

>>100
"What are you so concerned about? A person who isn't as meritable getting a job a meritable white person should've gotten? Well, I think there should be sub-policies in place that should insure that won't happen. If you still have a problem with AA; it's because a black being a hired over a white person just doesn't sit well with you."

That's been your same argument over and over. If a black person is better at a job than a white person and the employer chooses the white person we think he is as much of an asshole if the white person was black and the black person was white.

You can keep on claiming that we are secret racists and lying all the time if you want, but that does not change the fact that it is unfair and unmeritocratic to hire someone based on their race rather than their abilities, whatever the race or whatever the opinion of the person who makes that statement.

>>101

Know what, kid? I really don't care if you think it's "unfair". The position minorities are in this country isn't exactly "fair". The private sector exploiting society isn't "fair". Life isn't "fair".

But empowering the weak and exploited, comes first for any fully ethical and objective society- insuring that 'poor environment/government' is no longer the excuse for the lack of sucess for a large part our population should come first. At the end of the day this effects a minority of the white population and businessness owned by whites who practice and even worse- instituationalize descrimination and racism. As far as I'm concerned the end justifies the means by far.

I'm sorry that this isn't Lord of the Rings, ya weeatard. This is reality.
 
Do you really think the end of the race problem in this country is by consistant reminder to be nice to your fellow man? Do you really think simple "enforcement" with NO concrete and effective policies in place are going to heal racial disparity? It didn't work post-Civil War, didn't work during Jim Crow...the government has to step in and decide if it wants to control the fate of it's own and uphold it's own beliefs or just let "the free market" handle it.

You achieve equality in a multi-cultural democratic-capitalist society by insuring that not only equality and justice reigns supreme, but by also insuring that if any instance of discrimination remains prevalant in society- then at the very least everyone will be discriminated against equally.

>>102
"Do you really think simple "enforcement" with NO concrete and effective policies in place are going to heal racial disparity?"
This means you actually think that black people need special treatment to be equal to Chinese immigrants who have no communities of their own and often arrived with less than $100, but who's kids now fill the US's higher education establishments.

You are now on trial for being a racist.

The fact that the world isn't fair means that if affirmative action worked for the greater good it should be supported temporarily even though it is immoral. However affirmative action is less useful than the same expense used to increase enforcement of civil rights.

Regulating employment and prosecuting and punishing businesses which discriminate is much less of a restraint on the economy than forcing companies to employ people they don't need, whether they have been proven to be discriminating or not. It also saves the government having to explain to young white males why they are replaced by underachieving minorities in a pathetic attempt to stop them joining the brownshirts and skinheads in droves. Especially with the rise of neo-conservatism, an energy crisis and climate change on the horizon we should be fearful of the future.

Black people do not need more than the laws which apply to everyone else in the US. The reason why black inner city kids don't go to MIT, whilst 1st generation Chinese kids do is because of a lack of law enforcement in the right places.

>>103

Your logic is flawed and why you think you can continue to make the statements you have without even attempting to provide proof or proof of a plan in regards to "Civil Rights Environment" is beyond me.

1. You have no proof that affirmative action isn't useful.

2. You have no proof that affirmative action has been a restraint on the economy.

3. You have no proof that young white males are being replaced by "underachieving minorities" and the implications of this opinion on racist. But unlike me; you're not exactly on trial here. I don't care if you're racist or not, really.

4. You don't really know why black inner city kids don't go to MIT. From what you said in this thread, I'm fairly certain you only have like 3 or 4 black friend, IF THAT. You don't exactly have your 'finger on the pulse of America' or anything, kid. Don't delude yourself. It's embarrassing.

From this; I can only deduce that you're just another weeaboo teenager desperately trying to understand the real world.

I leave you with what I ended my prior post with:

You achieve equality in a multi-cultural democratic-capitalist society by insuring that not only equality and justice reigns supreme, but by also insuring that if any instance of discrimination remains prevalant in society- then at the very least everyone will be discriminated against equally.

>>100
"Ok, Mr. Shit-for-brains. Let's take your delusion for face value, then. Slavery was ended primarily on the grounds of property rights...lol."

I never said that. 

"Ok, yeah, no it wasn't."

See above.

"Back then the south considered people as property and banning slavery was a violation of THIER property rights."

Forcibly enslaving someone is clearly a violation of the right to the most basic piece of property of all that an individual owns - his own body.  Thus, slavery is wrong. 

"I find it hard to believe that back then, you would've been fighting for black people's property rights."

I would. 

"Judging by the posts you made I'm going to assume you are under the general belief that blacks are inferior; so yeah: You fails it."

I never said they are inferior.  Further, even if they were generally genetically inferior, that is not grounds to deprive them of basic human rights (such as property rights).

>>100
"What burden, you fucking idiot? The burden of hiring a black person? I seriously don't get it. Can you seriously tell me how non-racist white business owners are effected by Affirmative Action?"

It isn't just business owners.  Affirmative action deals with a whole range of other areas of life as well, such as college applications.  Affirmative action drags race into the picture when there quite simply should be nothing considered but merit.  It is racist.  I guess you don't consider discrimination discrimination unless it is perpetrated against black people.  Wake up:  white people can and are discriminated against based on their race.  Yep, that's affirmative action.

"If you're not guilty of racism in your practices, then you'll have nothing to worry about."

Not true.  Affirmative action affects almost everyone, and everyone who isn't a minority who participates in typical activities, such as going to a college, could be affected.  In Michigan, for example, universties and colleges were (prior to the passing of prop.2, banning affirmative action), admitting minorities over white people, often even when the white people were more qualified as students.  The colleges and universities (many of them STATE-RUN) then claimed that it was in the spirit of promoting diversity on their campuses.  The passing of prop.2, banning such racist affirmative action programs, ended this abuse of public funds and educational facilities. 

"Stop acting as if AA is some kind of legislated attack on the white race."

It IS* some kind of legislated attack on white people.  Well, some programs give preference to white WOMEN.  But, if you are a white male, you get the short end of the stick.

"What are you so concerned about?"

Several things. 

1.  Being discriminated against.

2.  Other people being discriminated against.

3.  I simply have a general interest in politics and making government better.

"A person who isn't as meritable getting a job a meritable white person should've gotten? Well, I think there should be sub-policies in place that should insure that won't happen."

Sounds different from what you were saying earlier.  Nonetheless, I still won't budge an inch from:  'race or gender should not be considered when applying for a position.'  

"If you still have a problem with AA; it's because a black being a hired over a white person just doesn't sit well with you."

I'd be against AA regardless of who was getting it.

"Too fucking bad, Mr. Racist. Move to a place that isn't free and doesn't practice equality and democracy."

Considering prop.2 passed, I think it is YOU who should move to a place that practicies affirmative action, if you want it.  As you said, 'too fucking bad, Mr. Racist.'

>>104

"1. You have no proof that affirmative action isn't useful."

Whether or not it is 'useful' or not is not what is most important.  What is most important is whether or not affirmative action policies or programs are -right- or not.  They are not right.  It is not right to drag race into a matter that should be being solved taking nothing into consideration but merit.

As to whether or not affirmative action 'works'? Maybe you should read this book: 

http://www.amazon.com/Affirmative-Action-Around-World-Empirical/dp/0300107757/sr=8-18/qid=1164340931/ref=sr_1_18/104-4668493-6087905?ie=UTF8&s=books

2. You have no proof that affirmative action has been a restraint on the economy.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/when_quotas.htm

3. You have no proof that young white males are being replaced by "underachieving minorities" and the implications of this opinion on racist. But unlike me; you're not exactly on trial here. I don't care if you're racist or not, really.

http://www.vdare.com/pb/when_quotas.htm

>>105
>>107

Re-read >>104 and ask yourself if I really give a fuck about the plight of privileged peoples? (White males.) There's affirmative action that benefits only white women? GOOD. Excellent, I say. White women are victims of white privilege as well. You guys just can't seem to wrap your heads around the fact that when it comes to preserving a fair and balanced multi-racial society- that white males are going to have to run the risks of discrimination just like everyone else. 

White males aren't overwhelmingly poor, they are less likely to be descriminated agianst and if our system doesn't dole them out a helping of discrimination like they've been doing to everyone else for the last 100 years, then this equality dream isn't going to work. The only thing you guys have proven in this entire thread is your undying zeal for protecting white males and their privilege in this country. 

1. You have no proof that affirmative action isn't useful.

Quotas mean that some people will be replaced by people who were less qualified than them. The higher the quota the more likely this will happen. This isn't useful because it does not punish companies which discriminate, all it does is discriminate against people for being a certain irrelevant demographic.


2. You have no proof that affirmative action has been a restraint on the economy.

Quotas mean that occasionally companies must choose workers who merit less than other workers, which corrupts the market economy.


3. You have no proof that young white males are being replaced by "underachieving minorities" and the implications of this opinion on racist. But unlike me; you're not exactly on trial here. I don't care if you're racist or not, really.

You are on trial for being racist. The proof is in the nature of quotas as I've already explained in grade school language.

The quota is set at 10% for blues. A company needs 10 workers and has 20 to choose from, 19 of whom are blue and 1 of whom is green. After an aptitude test the top 15 workers are all green and the worker who came in 16th place was blue. The company must illogically replace the worker who came 10th with the worker who came 16th in order to fill the quota.

>>108
You talk about white males as if it consists of 1 person. Very much like a racist talks about jews and blacks as if they are 1 person. You must be AC.

>>110

The only person treating white males as if it's only one person is you. The difference here is that you're placing that one person, that one privileged person, higher than those needless victims of history and those who have been exploited by society run by and for the benefit of white males.

It looks sad and stupid that you try to defend across-the-board equality, while at the same time showing loyality and zealously defending your race and your race only.

You are psychologically unable to admit this to yourself because of the insular life you led as a white male. So, instead, you trump up scenarios of persecution. Try to place your discrimination on the same level as a black person's or a mexican immigrant or a middle easterner. "Reverse Racism" is a logical fallacy and a slap in the face to those who have historically and systematically subjegated by a system built solely for the prosperty of white males. 

The free new world is not perfect. There's always going to be a bigot about. Affirmative Action disarms the bigot by using his own weapons against him, so that he too, can know and understand the sting of discrimination first hand. And if this white man, can't accept that he has to deal with same things that "minorities" have to deal with- then he can never be free of the guilt of his exploiter ancestors.

You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth.

You fail at getting persecuted, you fail at racial harmony, you fail at presenting a convincing anti-AA argument. Thread over.

-AC

>>111
"The only person treating white males as if it's only one person is you."

"You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth.

You fail at getting persecuted, you fail at racial harmony, you fail at presenting a convincing anti-AA argument. Thread over."
You've got to be shitting me pancakes and cream....

Well you've just evoked Godwin's law so this thread was over anyway.

oh and stop impersonating me

>>112

The thread was over when you started impersonating me, you cum-thirsty baby rape victim. You think you can just slap on a faggot-trip code and call yourself Anti-Chan? You can't pull this off with the same ease as it took to take your father's johnson up your wore-out asshole. This is an art.

And art of dick-jokes and accustory statements about your sexuality...but still an art. So, yeah, just run along you walking toilet, go back to your day job:

Cleaning out the jizz-buckets at gay bath-houses with a crazy straw and a determined look on your face.

>>111
"It looks sad and stupid that you try to defend across-the-board equality, while at the same time showing loyality and zealously defending your race and your race only."

I'm not defending my race and my race only.  I defend the property rights of everyone, regardless of what race or sex they are. 

"So, instead, you trump up scenarios of persecution."

Trump up? You openly advocated discrimination against white males.  This is nothing 'trumped up'.  All one needs to do is read the garbage spewing out of post >>111.

"The free new world is not perfect. There's always going to be a bigot about. Affirmative Action disarms the bigot by using his own weapons against him, so that he too, can know and understand the sting of discrimination first hand."

Affirmative action targets all white males regardless of whether or not they are bigots, and regardless of whether or not their ancestors were bigots. 

Not all white males in the USA had ancestors with slaves.  A good number possibly had ancestors who even helped black people escape slavery via the underground railroad.  A good chunk more are immigrants to the USA, who have (possibly) no slavery tied to their ancestry whatsoever. 

Of course, even if they did have ancestors who had slaves, this is redundant since it is not right to punish them for the sins of their ancestors from 300 years ago.

"And if this white man, can't accept that he has to deal with same things that "minorities" have to deal with- then he can never be free of the guilt of his exploiter ancestors."

Guilt from ancestors? It is wrong to punish someone for the sins of their ancestors from 300 years ago.  Furthermore, you give the implication in this comment that all white men currently living in the USA had ancestors who owned slaves, which is not only a very racist notion, but a blatantly false one.

"You fail at getting persecuted, you fail at racial harmony, you fail at presenting a convincing anti-AA argument. Thread over."

Firstly, it is you who fail at racial harmony, because you advocate discrimination which will then further divide and anger two races of people in the USA, thus upsetting the racial harmony. 

Nextly, I see nothing wrong with my anti-AA arguments, nor those of the other people who have contributed. 

>>111
"You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth."

You fail at analogies.

>>111  "Reverse Racism" is a logical fallacy and a slap in the face to those who have historically and systematically subjegated by a system built solely for the prosperty of white males. "

It is spelled 'subjugated,' not 'subjegated,' you stupid faggot.  The reason you can't get a job isn't because you are black, it is because you can't fucking spell.  Go back to high school.

"You calling me a racist, is like a Nazi calling a Jew a racist because the Jew doesn't like how the Nazi's tried to subjegate and wipe his people off of the face of the earth."

Wow, not only do you fail at analogies, arguing, and comma placing, you fail at basic spelling.  Maybe the reason you have such trouble finding work is that you fail at basic tasks and skills you should have picked up back in high school.

>>115
>>116

What the hell? I don't have trouble finding work you dumb fuck. Just- just fuckin' leave. Imitating me was the first sign of defeat. LOL, you think desperately trying to wipe the slate clean with that shitty equality rag is going to heal hundreds of years of racial disharmony? LOL. "Not every white person as slave owner ancestors" --- Like it even matters!

>>117
"Just- just fuckin' leave."

He has as much right to participate in the discussion as you do.

"Imitating me was the first sign of defeat."

You mean pointing out your ignorance pertaining to basic english & spelling?

"LOL, you think desperately trying to wipe the slate clean with that shitty equality rag is going to heal hundreds of years of racial disharmony?"

'Wipe the slate'? What 'slate'? Explain.  A modern white man who has no connection to slavery obviously owes you nothing. 

"LOL. "Not every white person as slave owner ancestors" --- Like it even matters!"

That was one of the justifications you pro-affirmative action people use to justify your institutionalized discrimination.  Yes, I'd say it -does- matter.  You fail.  You fail even more for not so much as -addressing- the arguments given above.

>>117

"What the hell? I don't have trouble finding work you dumb fuck."

This whole thread you have been bitching about how 'black people' have trouble finding work due to a supposedly evil racist system out to get them.  You basically said in a post earlier that you yourself were black. 

>>120
are* I meant to say.