Conquer Club

California legislators have rejected a proposed day commemorating John Wayne.

The Duke's bigotry seems to have swung lawmakers against the proposal.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/29/john-wayne-day-california-lawmakers-reject-proposal-racist-statements

Citing Wayne's declaration- "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,”, Luis Alejo, Democrat, opposed the motion.

“He stood for those big American values that we know and we love,” said Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen.

Symmetry wrote:California legislators have rejected a proposed day commemorating John Wayne.

The Duke's bigotry seems to have swung lawmakers against the proposal.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/29/john-wayne-day-california-lawmakers-reject-proposal-racist-statements

Citing Wayne's declaration- "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,”, Luis Alejo, Democrat, opposed the motion.

“He stood for those big American values that we know and we love,” said Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen.

Please explain how that comment in particular is racist...
Or rather would you oppose it if it said "I believe in Black supremacy until the Whites are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."
What he's saying is basically once they're educated he doesn't have a problem with it. The second half explains the first half of the statement. Which I agree. You shouldn't have people without knowledge in positions of leadership. Its like putting a baby in as president. I don't see the fundamental racism here.

I'm against spending valuable legislating time recognizing actors (alive or dead). Apart from that, this quote:

John Wayne wrote:I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people

Seems like something I could support.

They are wrong John Wayneis dead....

George A. never saw John Wayne on the sands of Iwo Jima.

-TG

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:George A. never saw John Wayne on the sands of Iwo Jima.

-TG

DBT?

f*ck yeah.

-TG

knew i'd heard that somewheres...

Best American band of the last 15-20 years. I'd argue Isbell is this generation's greatest songwriter as well.

-TG

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:California legislators have rejected a proposed day commemorating John Wayne.

The Duke's bigotry seems to have swung lawmakers against the proposal.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/29/john-wayne-day-california-lawmakers-reject-proposal-racist-statements

Citing Wayne's declaration- "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,”, Luis Alejo, Democrat, opposed the motion.

“He stood for those big American values that we know and we love,” said Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen.

Please explain how that comment in particular is racist...
Or rather would you oppose it if it said "I believe in Black supremacy until the Whites are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."
What he's saying is basically once they're educated he doesn't have a problem with it. The second half explains the first half of the statement. Which I agree. You shouldn't have people without knowledge in positions of leadership. Its like putting a baby in as president. I don't see the fundamental racism here.

You don't see white supremacy as an inherently racist position? At best the second part of his statement is a kind of paternalistic racism. It's still racism.

thegreekdog wrote:I'm against spending valuable legislating time recognizing actors (alive or dead). Apart from that, this quote:

John Wayne wrote:I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people

Seems like something I could support.

Except, of course, "irresponsible people" in that sentence directly means African-Americans.

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:California legislators have rejected a proposed day commemorating John Wayne.

The Duke's bigotry seems to have swung lawmakers against the proposal.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/29/john-wayne-day-california-lawmakers-reject-proposal-racist-statements

Citing Wayne's declaration- "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,”, Luis Alejo, Democrat, opposed the motion.

“He stood for those big American values that we know and we love,” said Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen.

Please explain how that comment in particular is racist...
Or rather would you oppose it if it said "I believe in Black supremacy until the Whites are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."
What he's saying is basically once they're educated he doesn't have a problem with it. The second half explains the first half of the statement. Which I agree. You shouldn't have people without knowledge in positions of leadership. Its like putting a baby in as president. I don't see the fundamental racism here.

You don't see white supremacy as an inherently racist position? At best the second part of his statement is a kind of paternalistic racism. It's still racism.

How is saying that Blacks should not be allowed into positions of leadership until they are sufficiently educated racist? Desegregation happened in 1954. John Wayne Died in 1979 (when the first batch of desegregated people would have been just coming out of college). So his statement makes complete sense. I don't care if you're white, black, or any other ethnicity if you don't have the proper education and can't be responsible for the people underneath you because you don't have the knowledge and experience you don't deserve to be in a position on leadership. He didn't say that they shouldn't be allowed at all, or anything close. He made a statement saying that if they are educated and can be responsible he doesn't have a problem with it.. Too bad you can't seem to understand that from his simple statement.

Symmetry wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:I'm against spending valuable legislating time recognizing actors (alive or dead). Apart from that, this quote:

John Wayne wrote:I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people

Seems like something I could support.

Except, of course, "irresponsible people" in that sentence directly means African-Americans.

And all other irresponsible people. Enjoy your delusions.

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:California legislators have rejected a proposed day commemorating John Wayne.

The Duke's bigotry seems to have swung lawmakers against the proposal.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/29/john-wayne-day-california-lawmakers-reject-proposal-racist-statements

Citing Wayne's declaration- "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,”, Luis Alejo, Democrat, opposed the motion.

“He stood for those big American values that we know and we love,” said Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen.

Please explain how that comment in particular is racist...
Or rather would you oppose it if it said "I believe in Black supremacy until the Whites are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."
What he's saying is basically once they're educated he doesn't have a problem with it. The second half explains the first half of the statement. Which I agree. You shouldn't have people without knowledge in positions of leadership. Its like putting a baby in as president. I don't see the fundamental racism here.

You don't see white supremacy as an inherently racist position? At best the second part of his statement is a kind of paternalistic racism. It's still racism.

How is saying that Blacks should not be allowed into positions of leadership until they are sufficiently educated racist? Desegregation happened in 1954. John Wayne Died in 1979 (when the first batch of desegregated people would have been just coming out of college). So his statement makes complete sense. I don't care if you're white, black, or any other ethnicity if you don't have the proper education and can't be responsible for the people underneath you because you don't have the knowledge and experience you don't deserve to be in a position on leadership. He didn't say that they shouldn't be allowed at all, or anything close. He made a statement saying that if they are educated and can be responsible he doesn't have a problem with it.. Too bad you can't seem to understand that from his simple statement.

I've literally already replied to this. It's almost as if you don't really understand paternalistic racism or white supremacy.

What do you consider "proper education", ris? Cause you're on a Jim Crow slippery slope with that line if you're not careful.

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:California legislators have rejected a proposed day commemorating John Wayne.

The Duke's bigotry seems to have swung lawmakers against the proposal.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/apr/29/john-wayne-day-california-lawmakers-reject-proposal-racist-statements

Citing Wayne's declaration- "I believe in white supremacy until the blacks are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people,”, Luis Alejo, Democrat, opposed the motion.

“He stood for those big American values that we know and we love,” said Republican Assemblyman Travis Allen.

Please explain how that comment in particular is racist...
Or rather would you oppose it if it said "I believe in Black supremacy until the Whites are educated to a point of responsibility. I don’t believe in giving authority and positions of leadership and judgment to irresponsible people."
What he's saying is basically once they're educated he doesn't have a problem with it. The second half explains the first half of the statement. Which I agree. You shouldn't have people without knowledge in positions of leadership. Its like putting a baby in as president. I don't see the fundamental racism here.

You don't see white supremacy as an inherently racist position? At best the second part of his statement is a kind of paternalistic racism. It's still racism.

How is saying that Blacks should not be allowed into positions of leadership until they are sufficiently educated racist? Desegregation happened in 1954. John Wayne Died in 1979 (when the first batch of desegregated people would have been just coming out of college). So his statement makes complete sense. I don't care if you're white, black, or any other ethnicity if you don't have the proper education and can't be responsible for the people underneath you because you don't have the knowledge and experience you don't deserve to be in a position on leadership. He didn't say that they shouldn't be allowed at all, or anything close. He made a statement saying that if they are educated and can be responsible he doesn't have a problem with it.. Too bad you can't seem to understand that from his simple statement.

I've literally already replied to this. It's almost as if you don't really understand paternalistic racism or white supremacy.

What do you consider "proper education", ris? Cause you're on a Jim Crow slippery slope with that line if you're not careful.

By that same metric, a "proper education" is one that is is line with the culture's ideals and such. Thus, if a majority of the black population hasn't the education of the country's majority (European descendents, mostly white), then they aren't properly educated, especially if they're to take positions of governance and legislation of that system. If you wanna say they have proper education for another culture, that's fine and you would be correct.

Don't be willfully obtuse.

-TG

In addition, I'm not sure Wayne would be a white supremacist, considering he only had offspring with Hispanic women and was fluent in Spanish.

-TG

Hmm, some interesting definitions of "proper education" there. Do you think that people should have to pass tests to vote?

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:In addition, I'm not sure Wayne would be a white supremacist, considering he only had offspring with Hispanic women and was fluent in Spanish.

-TG

Please don't make me bring back the Thomas Jefferson rape thread. It was embarrassing to many of my American friends.

Symmetry wrote:Hmm, some interesting definitions of "proper education" there. Do you think that people should have to pass tests to vote?

I think you should at least have the equivalent of a high school diploma along with the age requirement to vote. Mainly so that you know how exactly the government works. Also for positions of leadership (it would depend on which position, but lets say federal) you would need at least a college education and several years of experience under someone of current leadership (no matter how much i hate politicians, they are very good at being corrupt.) So that you have a larger understanding of this country's laws and how they all interact. For state level, same issue. I'll be the broken record here, but the issue is having enough knowledge to be responsible for the position of leadership that you are in. You can say what you want about the countries founders and racism, but even they had requirements for certain levels of leadership. Have you looked at the requirements for president?

Also in the terms of foreign immigrants i don't have issues with them voting because many of them are highly educated and they have to have a basic understanding of the constitution and the laws here to get their green card. Just as many jobs today require either a high school or college diploma, so also should positions of leadership, either through apprenticeship experience (hands on education) or through higher education like college and some on the job training.

Symmetry wrote:

TA1LGUNN3R wrote:In addition, I'm not sure Wayne would be a white supremacist, considering he only had offspring with Hispanic women and was fluent in Spanish.

-TG

Please don't make me bring back the Thomas Jefferson rape thread. It was embarrassing to many of my American friends.

You can bring it back all you want... the only person you will be embarrassing is yourself.

rishaed wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Hmm, some interesting definitions of "proper education" there. Do you think that people should have to pass tests to vote?

I think you should at least have the equivalent of a high school diploma along with the age requirement to vote. Mainly so that you know how exactly the government works. Also for positions of leadership (it would depend on which position, but lets say federal) you would need at least a college education and several years of experience under someone of current leadership (no matter how much i hate politicians, they are very good at being corrupt.) So that you have a larger understanding of this country's laws and how they all interact. For state level, same issue. I'll be the broken record here, but the issue is having enough knowledge to be responsible for the position of leadership that you are in. You can say what you want about the countries founders and racism, but even they had requirements for certain levels of leadership. Have you looked at the requirements for president?

Also in the terms of foreign immigrants i don't have issues with them voting because many of them are highly educated and they have to have a basic understanding of the constitution and the laws here to get their green card. Just as many jobs today require either a high school or college diploma, so also should positions of leadership, either through apprenticeship experience (hands on education) or through higher education like college and some on the job training.

Sorry mate, Jim Crow laws were abolished a long time ago. As much as you might like to see them reintroduced, most people see them for what they are.

Much like the California legislature saw John Wayne for what he was in their recent decision.

But anyway, let's examine the full depth of your "must have a college education" proposal.

Presidents without any college education- George Washington, Andrew Jackson, Martin van Buren, Zachary Taylor, Millard Fillmore, Abraham Lincoln, Andrew Johnson, Grover Cleveland.

There's loads more who went to college but never finished.

You're argument is pretty ridiculous.

All arguments are ridiculous! Make cookies not war!

apey wrote:All arguments are ridiculous! Make cookies not war!

Make war cookies!

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anzac_biscuit

*kicks symm*
Get off it!!
Cookies are love