Because most people are ignorant and won't do basic historical research. They wait to be told on an internet forum, and even they most rarely click and read the links provided.
What is white privilege?
- Thread starter Talasour
- Start date
- Status
Because most people are ignorant and won't do basic historical research. They wait to be told on an internet forum, and even they most rarely click and read the links provided.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
The difference is that the white is king song would be about killing black people.
Ive listened to a lot of racist songs over the years.
Er Mercedes?
And now I'm watching the Harry Enfield show sketches again, was it really over 25 years ago..?!
The Playboy's sketch and the Liverpool v arsenal sketch probably 2 of the best
That's a hell of an assumption!
The more recent Question Time and Quiz Show sketches are funny too!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2017
- Posts
- 2,141
- Location
- by the tower the one up north ..
did i say anything about colour ? every society has those that will pick on someone because there different .. be them white green blue or any other colour
be it in work or play old or young .. if you don't see it there's the problem ..
I see you didn't read the second part of my post.
Care to explain why the Republicans are such a regressive party now or are we limiting discussion only to particular passages of history that support your hypothesis?
This is true, the democratic party seem to be the most racist party. Even in more recent history like the civil rights act republicans were more supportive of it, and the democrats opposed the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments!
Part one of aforementioned post
.Part 2 of your post was not wanting said evidence from over 100 years.. either that or bleating on about the conservative party
.
Why do you think the republicans are such a regressive party?
Last edited:
This is what I want to know, you look at the policies that republicans are pushing for like school vouchers which would help the most disadvantaged children, especially black children, and democrats are opposing it!
This is the political equivalent of asking people if they know the actress that plays Big Mo in Eastenders is related to Gary Oldman.
Everybody knows it, it's history. What has it got to do with the world we actually live in?
Because their legislation is actively regressive on the poor. Their tax positions actively favour people who are millionaires over blue collar workers, they throw hissy fits over the most basic of nationalised health care legislation and they will fillibuster anything that would be of benefit to the American people. Their entire modus operandi is benefitting from idiots who believe that someday they might be a millionaire even though it will never happen. If I have to explain this to you I must admit I don't really believe that you have the qualifications to have an opinion about any of this.
The Republicans are an absolutely brilliant party economically if you're wealthy and have the means to support yourself and if you believe that the legal system of the country should be fairly biblical. Their track record on helping Americans on moderate incomes is abysmal though. Do you have any idea how much healthcare costs in the hellscape that is America?
Read the bill, not the policy and the riders attached to it. Be a better citizen. Make informed choices. Stop parrotting garbage nonsense for idiots.
If something is branded as 'The School Vouchers for Children Act' it's probably because it sounds better than 'The Tax Cut For Corporations Who Use Sub Food Grade Material In The School Dinners Act.' Much the same as The Patriot Act sounds a damn sight better than The We Get To Spy On In The Name Of Patriotism Act. This is not a value judgement about either party, any political party will pull this marketing swizz and it's infuriating seeing people go on about policies - policies are not laws, they are marketing straplines.
Last edited:
They're opposing anything and everything that isn't lit as Democrat at this point.
Look at the Mayor of NY and how things are going right now.
I find it insane and disgusting, but hey... I know how things go here and sadly elsewhere.
So you don't deny that democrats are opposing school vouchers?
The Democrats bill (HEROES Act) pledges circa $100bn in spending for the state education system. The Republican bill (HEALS Act) pledges vouchers for schools to the tune of around $106bn. The Democrats are opposing school vouchers because voucher systems rely on claimants to actually claim them, which is fraught with problems like lower income families not necessarily having access to the systems required to claim the vouchers. Both are still proposing substantial school funding, but the mechanism by which they do it is vastly different.
To give you an analogous situation - the government is pleding £x billion (I forget the figure) for the roll out of superfast broadband in the UK. The catch is, you have to arrange and pay for an Openreach survey and end up forking out sometimes tens of thousands of pounds to actually get the Superfast broadband. But you get a voucher towards the cost of the installation. In my case, I have to pony up just shy of £8,000 after VAT is factored in to help the government meet its funding target with a voucher of £2,500. The voucher system isn't lying, but it conveniently glosses over some major 'gotchas' that make it inaccessible to a lot of people who may have voted for it; usually those of lower means.
ETA: this is totally ignoring the HEALS act slashing support for individuals and families most economically hurt by the pandemic and it's not a wild logical leap to suggest these people are going to be the most economically vulnerable in society.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
I would definitely vote Democrat but it's the affirmative action policies I dont like. They should help all disadvantaged people. Not just ethnic minorities and women. Its racism and sexism. It should be the best person for the job. I have no problem with equaling or increasing public funding in ethnic minority areas in general as that is just increasing funding to a poor area. But they should do the same in poor white areas.
Any examples of these systems they lack?
For people who are curious here is a summary of the bill
https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/cam...ivate-school-choice-bill-pandemic-relief.html
Here is the bill in full
https://www.scott.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/pdf.pdf
Edit: Is a lack of funding actually the issue for some of these schools or is something else the problem.
Heaven forbid the state should encourage parents to take some responsibility for their children's education and not just expect the state to do everything.
Everyone in the US with a minimal effort can gain acces to an Internet service.
Parents being involved actively in their children's education and promoting the child's academic development is a key indicator of socio-economic advancement.
No wonder the dems oppose school vouchers
Last edited:
The most obvious one that comes to mind is access to the Internet at their homes, for example. Comparatively, we have a fairly cushy ride in the UK when it comes to the cost of ISP packages as we're largely no subjected to use caps. We have an unbundled loop so that providers are free to compete, whereas in the US a lot of geographies are subject to monopolies from the big players who built local infrastructure, meaning there is no price competition. You also have a former big telco lobbyist running the FCC, so none of that is going to change anytime soon either.
Now, households with access to broadband services in the US has trended up in recent years to around 80% but that is still 20% of the US without household access to broadband and I don't think it's controversial to suggest these are not the wealthiest Americans. Couple that with the fact that we're in the midst of a global recession where people are losing their jobs and being forced to make decisions over whether to pay for their groceries or broadband, you have a potential problem.
There is always the argument that those 20% without household broadband could use local facilities like their library and that's a fair point for Americans living close to towns and cities, but America is a big country and a lot of it is very rural, meaning that there is significant travel involved and if your kids aren't in school right now then that means either dragging them over a few bus trips to go to a public library or hiring somebody to look after them, which costs money that, if you could afford you probably wouldn't be without home broadband.
If they're going to provide it, why make people jump through hoops if they need it? Do you need to make a refundable down payment on medical care on the NHS just to prove you've taken some responsibility for your health? Why waste public money building an online infrastructure purely for this scheme if you're committing to spending it on a net public good? How do you reconcile fiscal conservatism and personal responsibility with such simultaneous profligacy without your head melting? So many questions.
Most countries, including most in Europe, dont rely on a state run health care provider to provide the actual health care. The state in these countries often provides (sometimes partial) funding for the citizen to get their own treatment from private providers.... A bit like schooling with school vouchers.
The evidence suggests that services provided by the state frequently actually provide rather poor value for money.
By building an infrastructure for such a scheme your promote competition between providers that may assist in driving down the end user costs and /or improving the service provided.
As above your argument is the one that leads to inferior and expensive services.
- Status