Political Correctness

[prisonermonkeys]

Show me once where I vehemently insisted it was real (hint - don't bother).

I don't have to bother. In fact, I don't even have to try to find an example:

Think about it. If we find there is a link, why couldn't we aim to treat it instead of covering our ears screaming "WE ARE ALL THE SAME LALALA, EVERYONE ELSE IS A BIGOT". Let's work the problem. The age of cover ups is coming to an end.

So you have insisted that there is a problem. Now you're insisting that there is no problem, or at the very least, that if there is a problem, then you never insisted that it was a problem.

Then you do this:

Can't win an argument? Call in the PC police and try to shut down the funding for research!

So in other words, if there is a problem, everyone is in denial about it except for you. Which is a paradox because you're trying to insist and deny that there is a problem at the same time. And then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

There's no "PC Police" here. What you're proposing sounds suspiciously like eugenics, a fringe scientific theory that has rightfully been debunked.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Can't win an argument? Call in the PC police and try to shut down the funding for research!

How do you sleep at night with all the imaginary groups conspiring against you? First it was The Left, then Muslamics, now it's the PC Police

It was to be expected that you'd call up Jensen's paper, heavily discredited as it's been in the 46 years since its publication. It was peer-reviewed on many occasions by psychologists and geneticists who found that his data and reasoning were heavily skewed, that his sample groups weren't always comparable and that he completely ignored geographic location as a factor. That may have been down to a persistent error in his understanding or down to his funding source, the rather mental Pioneer Fund. The director of that fund (Rushton) was notably Jensen's co-writer on a number of works.

Here's a small part of a review on race and IQ, remembering that brain size correlates with intelligence

Correlates roughly.

researchers have cautioned against over simplifying this view. A meta-analytic review by McDaniel found that the correlation between Intelligence and in vivo brain size was larger for females (0.40) than for males (0.25). The same study also found that the correlation between brain size and Intelligence differed for age within sex, with children showing smaller correlations. Furthermore, the hypothesis has been put forward that the relationship between larger brain volumes and higher intelligence is facilitated not by the global increase of brain volume, but instead by the enlargement of selective parts of the brain associated with specific tasks.

Jensen himself raises another difficulty with such a correlation;

when blacks and whites are matched for IQ they have the same brain size, but the relationship does not run the other way

It looks like the argument you presented was a fairly low-brow stab at eugenics theory, at least that's my opinion.

@prisonermonkeys has already pointed out the paradox in your arguments. It seems to me that you're flapping about saying that surely something must be awfully wrong when people can't just accept that some "races" are simply thick. Doesn't work for me though, doesn't seem to work in balanced data either.

 

[KSaiyu]

So you have insisted that there is a problem. Now you're insisting that there is no problem, or at the very least, that if there is a problem, then you never insisted that it was a problem.

The problem is cover ups/political correctness. Do I have to explain everything to you?

So in other words, if there is a problem, everyone is in denial about it except for you. Which is a paradox because you're trying to insist and deny that there is a problem at the same time. And then you wonder why nobody takes you seriously.

Nope. Liberals don't because they don't want to.

There's no "PC Police" here. What you're proposing sounds suspiciously like eugenics, a fringe scientific theory that has rightfully been debunked.

Citation needed for where I've come across as a eugenecist (hint again, don't bother). I'm saying we address the fundamental differences between the races and embrace it rather than cover it up.

Correlates roughly.

Jensen himself raises another difficulty with such a correlation

Not quite. Review those again and think about it. (I'll help you out, we actually do use brain size as a marker for intelligence when we look at small for gestational age babies and their outcomes at school. We can even associate the volume of specific areas of the brain with intelligence).

@prisonermonkeys has already pointed out the paradox in your arguments. It seems to me that you're flapping about saying that surely something must be awfully wrong when people can't just accept that some "races" are simply thick. Doesn't work for me though, doesn't seem to work in balanced data either.

Now you are saying I called half of my family "thick", all while my black-Canadian relative just became a doctor. Let's keep the argument rational guys. Attack the points, don't make stuff up.

Let's keep it simple, well try to. This is a report from 2002 about educational achievement in the UK:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives....cations/eOrderingDownload/RTP01-03MIG1734.pdf
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2002/race/educational_achievement.stm

Would you agree that the idea that genetics and environment play a part in the results showing Chinese>White>Black is logical and would warrant investiation?

Here are GCSE results for pupils on Free School Meals (a marker of disadvantage):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jOJGmIi9Kh3UXu61G8EMJOhs8GogIISDWspFVc5tqaM/edit#gid=5

Would you agree that the idea that genetics and environment play a part in the results showing Chinese again at the top and White British at the bottom for FSM, and Chinese>White>Black for non FSM is logical and would warrant investigation?

I'll ask the burning question:

Why aren't we investigating more intensively brain size/functionality and ethnicity?

Could it be we know what the results would likely show, and we'd be at a loss as to how to balance the playing field? Such findings would undo years of PC teaching, and infrastructure built on these philosophies. It would require a brave and frank discussion of the difficulties we face, and the realities of creating and maintaining communities that had previously been separated for thousands of years.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

The problem is cover ups/political correctness. Do I have to explain everything to you?

Yes. When you start ringing the bell marked CONSPIRACY and when you're the only one who sees it, you absolutely need to explain it.

Nope. Liberals don't because they don't want to.

This liberal doesn't because this liberal believes in evidence. Of which you have shown none except for a forty year-old research paper that has been discredited by the entire scientific community.

Citation needed for where I've come across as a eugenecist (hint again, don't bother).

Every single post you have made in this thread could be used as a "citation" in this instance.

Also, you can't demand that someone produce evidence and then tell them not to bother.

I'm saying we address the fundamental differences between the races and embrace it rather than cover it up.

You're sounding more and more like Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained.

I'll ask the burning question:

Why aren't we investigating more intensively brain size/functionality and ethnicity?

Could it be we know what the results would likely show, and we'd be at a loss as to how to balance the playing field? Such findings would undo years of PC teaching, and infrastructure built on these philosophies. It would require a brave and frank discussion of the difficulties we face, and the realities of creating and maintaining communities that had previously been separated for thousands of years.

There is nothing "brave" or "frank" about what you are proposing. Your fear of anyone or anything that is different to you is plain for all to see. Look back over this discussion and all the others that you participate in. How much support do you get for your ideas?

Here's the real burning question:

Why are you so afraid? What is it about everyone else that you hate?

 

[KSaiyu]

Sigh. Wake me up when you address the points instead of the usual predictable PM response. Saying "every single post could be used" is not a citation.

You've answered a question with a question. A highly illogical one at that. What am I meant to be afraid of before I even begin to answer?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Sigh. Wake me up when you address the points instead of the usual predictable PM response.

Why should I be obliged to address the points you raise when you don't address the points that anyone else will?

 

[KSaiyu]

And so, the PC machine continues to be exposed:

Now a report of the event by a European Commission official present at the lunch for women journalists and scientists in Seoul contradicts some of this account and, Sir Tim’s supporters say, adds crucial context to his remarks.

The official wrote in the report, suppressed by the commission: “This is the transcript of Sir Tim Hunt’s speech, or rather a toast, as precise as I can recall it: ‘It’s strange that such a chauvinist monster like me has been asked to speak to women scientists. Let me tell you about my trouble with girls. Three things happen when they are in the lab: you fall in love with them, they fall in love with you, and when you criticise them they cry. Perhaps we should make separate labs for boys and girls?’ ”

Comments immediately after, unreported until now, read: “Now seriously, I’m impressed by the economic development of Korea. And women scientists played, without doubt an important role in it. Science needs women and you should do science despite all the obstacles, and despite monsters like me.” The official added: “Sir Tim didn’t ‘thank women for making lunch’.”

Professor Richard Dawkins, who has been vocal in his support, said that the account, in particular the use of “now seriously”, vindicated Sir Tim — and meant those who had criticised the scientist should reconsider their position.

Professor Dawkins said: “This phrase, deplorably omitted from all the reports that fed the lynch mob’s appetite, is the final confirmation that Tim Hunt’s remark was light-hearted banter against himself, his irony clearly (not clearly enough, alas) indicating that he is really the reverse of a ‘chauvinist monster’.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/science/article4478368.ece

I'll also leave in an article giving an impassioned defence of political correctness (in this case regarding Jerry Seinfeld). With an introduction as well-written as this:

Beloved funnyman of yesteryear Jerry Seinfeld (ask your parents!) took to the airwaves this week to offer his hoary wisdom on the state of modern comedy. A plague is upon us, he warns. Harmless jokesters and joy-bringers are literally being figuratively strangled by the long, thin goblin-fingers of “political correctness” (which is a fancy term for “not treating people who are already treated like garbage like garbage”), even though all they were trying to do was just say anything they want to, the way they always have, without ever being questioned or criticised by known killjoys such as “people of colour” and “women”, and with zero regard for the institutionally oppressed groups upon whose backs their industry has been stepping for generations in the service of shallow, straight white dude “catharsis”. Is that so wrong? Jerry Seinfeld, hero, is here to say “yes”; yes, that is so wrong.

which includes this tour-de-force single sentence:

Harmless jokesters and joy-bringers are literally being figuratively strangled by the long, thin goblin-fingers of “political correctness” (which is a fancy term for “not treating people who are already treated like garbage like garbage”), even though all they were trying to do was just say anything they want to, the way they always have, without ever being questioned or criticised by known killjoys such as “people of colour” and “women”, and with zero regard for the institutionally oppressed groups upon whose backs their industry has been stepping for generations in the service of shallow, straight white dude “catharsis”.

I'm sure the author's target audience are in no doubt that they've backed a winner, and are eagerly awaiting future critiques of the rising backlash against political correctness. Especially with her on the money assessment of white privilege, and how no minority would come to the same conclusions

(Seinfeld too, is Jewish)

Her conflation of Zara's (a Spanish company) "racist" profiling in New York City (one city) stores as proof that a country (America) is racist is equally riveting

 

[InSight]

RIP General Lee

https://www.yahoo.com/autos/general-lee-from-dukes-of-hazzard-losing-its-122294326432.html

 

[KSaiyu]

Yes, nothing will fight the scourge of racially motivated shootings like removing the Confederate flag from toy cars.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Ah, cynicism. The last resort of the insecure. It's easy to challenge and condemn the motivation of others, but the reality of it is that even the most hardened of cynics is naïve in their own way - because there is always something worse than you can conceive.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

Here are GCSE results for pupils on Free School Meals (a marker of disadvantage):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1jOJGmIi9Kh3UXu61G8EMJOhs8GogIISDWspFVc5tqaM/edit#gid=5

Would you agree that the idea that genetics and environment play a part in the results showing Chinese again at the top and White British at the bottom for FSM, and Chinese>White>Black for non FSM is logical and would warrant investigation?

I'll ask the burning question:

Why aren't we investigating more intensively brain size/functionality and ethnicity?

Could it be we know what the results would likely show, and we'd be at a loss as to how to balance the playing field? Such findings would undo years of PC teaching, and infrastructure built on these philosophies. It would require a brave and frank discussion of the difficulties we face, and the realities of creating and maintaining communities that had previously been separated for thousands of years.

Interesting to see how well Bangladeshis are doing as from what I remember you have a low opinion about us.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Interesting to see how well Bangladeshis are doing as from what I remember you have a low opinion about us.

He has a low opinion of anyone who doesn't think, act and behave exactly like him.

 

[KSaiyu]

Interesting to see how well Bangladeshis are doing as from what I remember you have a low opinion about us.

You'll see Bangladeshi's outperform White British as well looking at that.

But please don't confuse my aversion to what Tower Hamlets has become, or my statistical interpretation of the health of Bangladeshis secondary to their own actions as a "low opinion" of an entire race. It's another logic jump, and I hope we can get past that. Also doesn't explain the fact that my best tutee is Bangladeshi.

He has a low opinion of anyone who doesn't think, act and behave exactly like him.

Yeah since the moderators aren't doing anything you're blocked.

 

[Tornado]

So responding to anything in any way is PC gone mad?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

So responding to anything in any way is PC gone mad?

If so, not responding is by definition a response, which means that not responding to anything in any way is also political correctness gone mad.

 

[KSaiyu]

Why do you say that? I think I've put up with enough PM drive by posts to block him by now. If you mean why are the debates seemingly ending up with the same outcome I'd consider revising them, much like I had to when I first debated the libertarians.

This is what I was hinting at with memetic evolution. If we don't cross paths we keep being fed the same stories over and over with the same slant leading everyone nowhere. It's directly relatable to genetic evolution.

Some things evolve early. I too thought multiculturalism was a great idea growing up in London. By 2006 I was also rabidly pro-Palestinian, and got decimated leading to posts like this.

danoff said
KSaiyu,

I give up. You're bouncing all over the place. I can't keep track of 4 levels of responses that don't have anything to do with the original post. You keep shifting your argument around and missing the point and it's tiresome.

KSaiyu: I dunno, which part was missing the point? I'll agree it's tiresome, and I'm sorry if there were "4 levels of responses", but I didn't bring up every point, I just defended them from an Palestinian/Lebanese perspective and I think I didn't stray from the original argument (which was about the crisis) with my responses.

swift said
Kyasu, Since when is war automatically genocide?

KSaiyu: lol, it wasn't even me that brought this up, but I'll say again, at the moment it's not genocide (so it's a war), but I'm ASKING where is there left to go, and it can only be more killing of Lebanese which people can see as genocide.

This however was my first post on multiculturalism on GTP which was from a thread I created: (you can also see my source quoting got better)

The problem is our current policies foster all this hate, here you have a prime example:

http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/archives/183864.php

It shows the kind of nutters we have living in our country, and the type of people preaching to young muslims. Now even IF our continued support of the war on terror was reducing terrorist attacks (which I don't believe, hence the topic), these "vulnerable" muslims won't listen to this; they will listen to the people given free reign in our country, saying things like (excerpts from that link):

The people of Spain, it claims, have not been attacked since the Madrid bombings because they changed governments. "Despite warnings from al Qaeda in April of 2004, Tony Blair was re-elected as Prime Minister by the public in the U.K." The clear implication being that civilians in the U.K. were not innocents, but had the blood of British "attrocities" on their hands.
everal official written statement from the London branch of Bakri's followers, the 'al Ghurubaa' (the strangers), about the 'causes' of 7/7 can be found at their website here. While they are careful to 'condemn' the 7/7 bombers, they also equivocate between civilians accidentally killed by Western troops with the purposeful and targetted killings of civilians by Islamic terrorists.
This is the sort of thing they WILL hear, listen to and believe, and this is what will actually make them turn into terrorists. This doesn't just apply to "wannabe" terrorists either - it involves the, in my opinion, equally dangerous terrorists who have RETURNED from "jihad".

Now I don't know if you know, but Britain is becoming more and more multicultural, and we're now beginning to see the problems of this culture. People like this are free to preach to people, and if we mix this with the continued presence in the middle east with no stance at all on talks it's a timebomb waiting to explode. I believe it is lose-lose for us as a country to allow talking such as this to be allowed to continue that can target any muslim, and all the same while FEED the preachers with new messages of hate with our dismal foreign policy in dealing with muslims in other countries.

* Many thanks to @Swift for convincing me to post my thoughts and stick up for them after the general line of thinking was contrary to my views.

Now do you want to see my views on the NHS evolving?

First post on the NHS:

It's a system that has to be changed, and I'm grateful that the NHS was founded the time it was. I don't understand the fear of government interference, is it still a perceived threat of socialised medicine or just a general mistrust of politicians? It's indisputable costs have to come down, surely you're at the stage where this can only be achieved collectively by national controls, or am I oversimplifying here...

The same as charity would not be in a suitable option in a UK without the NHS (see healthcare inequity in rankings or studies of healthcare systems).

Quit?

Fact is Barts is a perfect storm of:
- Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Tower_Hamlets#Demographics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Newham#Demography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Borough_of_Waltham_Forest
- Mismanagement
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/feb/19/barts-health-chief-executive-chief-nurse-resign
- Culture of fear and bullying endemic across the NHS, heightened after a merger
http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAC1034.pdf

Add them all up?

Overall
Inadequate
Read overall summary

• Safe Inadequate
• Effective Inadequate
• Caring Requires improvement
• Responsive Inadequate
• Well-led Inadequate

http://www.cqc.org.uk/provider/R1H

I fully expect the NHS to change beyond recognition in the coming few years.

It's my theory that PC removes the selective pressure required for evolution of memes, and is reversing our progress.

 

[Joel]

Dude our memes are danker than ever.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Why do you say that?

Because there is no scenario here where everything goes back to the way that it was.

The Confederate flag is flying in South Carolina. People have suggested that it be replaced in the light of the massacre. Taking it down means rejecting the values associated with it. Leaving it up means endorsing those values.

You have suggested that it should not be taken down because it is pandering to the politically correct. @Tornado has - somewhat facetiously - suggested your posts imply that any reaction to the massacre is pandering to the politically correct. I simply built on that; leaving the flag up is a reaction to the demands to take it down; an endorsement of its values. So if any reaction is pandering, then leaving it up is a reaction, and could therefore also be considered pandering, paradoxical as it may be. The point is that you can't assume that there is an outcome where everything remains the same.

 

[Tornado]

Why do you say that?

Because a kid walked into a black church because it was a black church and massacred nearly everyone inside in a state that still proudly displays the Confederate flag on its main government building. As much as Southerners like to whitewash that the Confederate flag just represents the good bits of Southern culture, there was never a point in time where that creative interpretation was actually true. I'm fairly iffy about how heavy handed it is all being done and the extent being taken, but I feel the argument that the "Disney version" of the South being forced from all angles could lead to something like what happened has a lot more merit than just dismissing the whole thing as it were simply a PC witch hunt.

 

[KSaiyu]

Oh you mean reaction in that sense. Here's a post from the Guardian's comment section that sums up my thoughts (I'm getting lazy):

PC idiots, especially interns, have destroyed liberalism. I've worked hard for the cause, even nationally, but since I'm a plainspoken old union liberal (and not a troll) I've been banned from such diverse places as Democratic Underground and Bill Moyers, for life, with NO explanation or appeal (very Kafkaesque) for simply using terms they don't like. These idiots do NOT understand Context, for one thing. They would have banned Lenny Bruce. Morons.


For instance, when I worked day labor in the South, I was often the Only white guy working with a gang of blacks (since most young Southern whites couldn't keep up). They call another black guy who spent his whole check on payday on drugs, booze, and women while his family went hungry, a "******." This was obviously not a racist term, but PC idiots who have never actually worked with blacks, would faint. It all depend on context. Another time I was going to cash my check, riding with a Huge black guy - as big as a football player - and suggested we go in a barred store called "The Little Brown Jug" He replied, "No way. There's bad ****** in there." Context, stupid - college morons can't fathom it.

Something incidentally I can relate to, because growing up in a Muslim neighbourhood means you - yes - hang out with Muslims quite a lot. And when I played football I wore this

And was "one of the ****s*

It's all about the context. By all means take the flag from the main government building, but complete censorship is a dramatic overreaction.

And for an example of how out of hand it would get if we ban everything likely to cause offence. Here is a script from the universally loved film "Bend it Like Beckham":

- So, could you choose a white boy?

- White, no, black, definitely not, a Muslim, eh-eh!

- You'll marry an Indian, then!

- Probably.

I find that extremely offensive as I've been unable to meet my now-ex's family because of the fact that I am half black. Should I be allowed to call for Bend it Like Beckham to never be shown on TV.

I'd also like to ask, what would be the PC sanctioned response to the case of Rachel Dolezal

 

[Dotini]

I'd also like to ask, what would be the PC sanctioned response to the case of Rachel Dolezal

Seven funniest jokes about Rachel Dolezal on late-night TV:
https://www.yahoo.com/tv/s/7-best-rachel-dolezal-night-jokes-jimmy-fallon-143348202.html

 

[Saidur_Ali]

You'll see Bangladeshi's outperform White British as well looking at that.

But please don't confuse my aversion to what Tower Hamlets has become, or my statistical interpretation of the health of Bangladeshis secondary to their own actions as a "low opinion" of an entire race. It's another logic jump, and I hope we can get past that. Also doesn't explain the fact that my best tutee is Bangladeshi.

So do you see the progression then as in older studies you linked it was more the other way around?

Have some relatives that live in Tower Hamlets area, don't see all the doom and gloom you seem to only see. So you mention a lot about health, can you not see progression of health?: Link

Seeing a post like this: Link, I'm surprised you don't have a "low opinion" or is that you just trying to come across as being politically correct? Really don't see it as a logic jump.

 

[KSaiyu]

Fightback starts now. Hashtag "I'm not a number", or whatever who gives a ****

@Saidur_Ali I'll reply to your post in a bit

 

[zzz_pt]

Political correctness is overrated.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Political correctness is overrated.

It's also become an often misused buzzword meaning "things I don't like".

 

[KSaiyu]

So do you see the progression then as in older studies you linked it was more the other way around?

There's been progression with other groups.

Have some relatives that live in Tower Hamlets area, don't see all the doom and gloom you seem to only see.

Dude, the TH I know is the joint worst ****hole of London tied with Elephant and Castle. It's a sea of guys preaching "Allah is the only legislator: Democracy is dead", shoddy marketstalls and oppressed women:

Not to mention it's just escaped the clutches of Rahman, but only after authrorities had to launch an investigation into it.

So you mention a lot about health, can you not see progression of health?: Link

Your link shows progression of health among the unhealthiest, and is probably more a reflection of the health service than anything. Bangladeshi's are still prone to marry their cousins (25% at last count), and have a high incidence of smoking (40%).

Seing a post like this: Link, I'm surprised you don't have a "low opinion" or is that you just trying to come across as being politically correct? Really don't see it as a logic jump.

That's a post showing stastics and conclusions drawn from them. Hopefully as we dispel this cloud of political correctness we can discuss the facts rather than jumping to convenient conclusions.

 

[Saidur_Ali]

There's been progression with other groups.

Yes but there seems to have been regression too. Amazing to see relative improvement compared with some other groups.

Dude, the TH I know is the joint worst ****hole of London tied with Elephant and Castle. It's a sea of guys preaching "Allah is the only legislator: Democracy is dead", shoddy marketstalls and oppressed women:

Not to mention it's just escaped the clutches of Rahman, but only after authrorities had to launch an investigation into it.

Amazing then to see this: Link

Lowest death rate in whole of England and ninth most expensive town in the country for property prices. Just so happens largest ethnic group is Bangladeshis.

Your link shows progression of health among the unhealthiest, and is probably more a reflection of the health service than anything. Bangladeshi's are still prone to marry their cousins (25% at last count), and have a high incidence of smoking (40%).


That's a post showing stastics and conclusions drawn from them. Hopefully as we dispel this cloud of political correctness we can discuss the facts rather than jumping to convenient conclusions.

Surely it should be hook line and sinker then as you seem to be able to distinguish Bangladeshis from Pakistanis by how much worse health they have but that report seems to show the opposite.

I've been to a few weddings, yet to see someone marry their cousin. My family don't smoke.

Among women, smoking is lowest your report shows. It is quite an old research now though, wonder if there is also a sign of progression in this like in education. You seem to be doing a lot of jumping to convenient conclusions.

 

[KSaiyu]

I don't want to continue as I'm uncomfortable with how it would turn out but I'll say that sometimes we have to accept statistics and the conclusions we draw from them and hopefully in the not too distant future the different ethnic groups of Britain will become more introspective and pro-active in bringing about change.

 

[InSight]

Because there is no scenario here where everything goes back to the way that it was.

The Confederate flag is flying in South Carolina. People have suggested that it be replaced in the light of the massacre. Taking it down means rejecting the values associated with it. Leaving it up means endorsing those values.

By the news feeds, the government and media are on a mission to destroy everything that's South related, cos it's somehow offensive to somebody. This is a very dangerous precedent. So they ban the flag first, next confederate statues and names will be removed from public places.

Ofcourse the 2nd amendment will also have to be destroyed, cos it is considered old and belongs into the history, just like the confederate flag. Guns kill lots of people, can't have them.

Then they'll destroy 1st amendment. You can't have free speech, that's racist and offensive.

Next they'll wipe out founding fathers, they were all racists and owned slaves. You can't have that in PC America.

I'm very curious where this PC madness will stop...

 

[DK]

They're not banning the Confederate flag. Some states that fly it from state buildings (you know, public property) are removing it because of pressure from constituents. I won't shed a tear for it, mainly because I don't kid myself with the delusion that the Confederacy fought for "state's rights" in and of itself, but rather the right to retain slavery within their states.

A repeal of the 1st and 2nd Amendments have as much chance as passing as Rick Perry has of passing a middle school biology test.