Am I a Racist? Opinions wanted

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by themonk

Why is it that a white guy can call another white guy honkey and get away with it but if I call a white guy honkey I'm labelled a member of the Black Panther party?

A black guy called me a honky once. I agreed with him and went about my business.

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by VatorMan

I prefer the term Cracker TYVM.

Been called that too. Same reaction. Agreed and went on about my business.

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by prospero63

'cause you're candadian. Or canadien. Or not Uh-mer-can. Now get back in your igloo.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Flatbush Harry

Where I grew up, people were literate and well educated...and couldn't get into some top schools because of the vast oversupply of smart HS grads from the area. That's eff'n life...deal with it.

Further, parents who play the game described are, in fact, Texans, though probably not particularly bright or good ones. Like they say in some places, "all hat, no cattle".

Too, I hope my eff'n nephew studies hard as my twin brother lives in Dallas and would rather use UT.

Finally, for reasons I will not go into here (to protect the innocent as well as the guilty), UT has a flawed athletic program...so I don't really GAFF who or what goes to school there.



Harry

PS-Oh, and as to the guns, is that how y'all solve all arguments down there?

The "guns" portion of my post was a joke. Sorry it fell flat. I was going for a good natured North/South thing...... Much of the gun violence here is a result of illegals pouring across the border. 4 of the 6 officers most recently killed at HPD were killed at the hands of illegals, for example.

[themonk]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

A black guy called me a honky once. I agreed with him and went about my business.

A white guy called me a honky so I called him a n****r.

[MrPeabody]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

A black guy called me a honky once. I agreed with him and went about my business.

I prefer "sir" or "boss".

[Flatbush Harry]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

The "guns" portion of my post was a joke. Sorry it fell flat. I was going for a good natured North/South thing...... Much of the gun violence here is a result of illegals pouring across the border. 4 of the 6 officers most recently killed at HPD were killed at the hands of illegals, for example.

Actually, I knew you were kidding...but I thought I'd tweak back...hence, the PS.


Harry, NRA Certified Firearms Instructor

[prospero63]

Originally Posted by GRN ENVY

Ok, you want to be specific, I will write it out so you can understand what I was saying.

A. You found the one and only Caucasian scholarship, it only gives out $500 amounts to those who meet the requirements. I was talking about full rides, 100% paid scholarships, not small amounts. So I am still correct.

No, you are wrong. You made an incorrect statement, and don't have the grace to admit it. Consequently you are trying to say that you meant full rides, etc. etc. to make excuses when a simple "I was mistaken" would have done.

Here's another fast one found on google. Werner Scott Scholarship

B. There are tons of scholarships that are not paid by the government, but I was talking about ethnicity based scholarships. Those are primarily funded but the government give or take a few small privately funded organizations. Again 100% scholarships.

Yes, there are groups that give small amounts of scholarships but again I was talking about 100% coverage.

Where are your facts to support your claim of "Those are primarily funded but [sic] the government give or take a few small privately funded organizations"? Just posting this statement does not make it true.

C. Reading is fundamental, better yet comprehension is fundamental, didn't they teach that to you in school, I know I learned it.

I read, and comprehended, what you wrote. Once I did, you tried to claim that what you wrote isn't what you meant to write. Accountability is clearly something else you've fallen short on learning.

Perhaps I should have used the word "grants" those are government funded. I suppose the word scholarship can be used to loosely. Maybe that will be more clear to you?

Grants and scholarships are two totally different things. Although even then, not all grants are government funded.

[prospero63]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

Right there, you are contradicting yourself.

Er, no I didn't.

The space is to be awarded to the top 10% kid. Fine. There it is: top 10%-winner, non-top 10% loser. The rules are pretty simple. Shipping your kid off to a school where he is more apt to be top 10% makes him more apt to be a winner in the skewed, screwed up world of Texas' university admissions.

Yep, if it's so all fired important that they go to UT or A&M, by all means, send them to a school where his over all education is substandard. Congrats. Parent of the year right there.

The state has gamed the system, why are the parents idiots for gaming the system also? It is a zero sum game, BTW, win or lose. You either get in, or you go somewhere else. You said it yourself.

If you don't understand why parents who would send their kids to a school where they will (by your own admission) be undereducated are idiots, there's nothing I can say beyond that to change your mind or make you see it.

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by prospero63

Oh, that's easy. You knew what the target objective was, and you fell short. Welcome to life kid. It's tough. Wear a helmet. Not everyone is entitled to go to UT or A&M to validate their parents dreams and aspirations. If you'd have put in more work, and more effort, and had made the target, you wouldn't be here. Let that be a lesson to you. Work harder.



Well there's your problem. A sense of entitlement. It wasn't "his spot" at UT. It was the spot for the kids that scored in the top 10% of their school. If he'd have done that, it would be his spot. He didn't though, so it's their spot.



No, I call them idiots for under-educating their kids because it's so damned important that they bleed maroon or orange.

Are you not understanding the situation? A kid can go to a tough school, one that prepares the child for college, and come in just below the 10% and not qualify for a Texas college. At the same time a kid can go to a bad school that does little to prepare the child for college, and he/she gets in because he/she got in the top 10% of that school. Kid 1 can have an SAT higher than kid 2 and be left at home because his school had better teachers and academics that prepared more students for college. that school might have half the school that performed better in HS than the bad school, yet the bad school sends unqualified children to those Texas colleges.

I really hope I didn't muddle the waters worse and actually understood it correctly.

[carlton_fritz]

Originally Posted by themonk

A white guy called me a honky so I called him a n****r.

[Flatbush Harry]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

Are you not understanding the situation? A kid can go to a tough school, one that prepares the child for college, and come in just below the 10% and not qualify for a Texas college. At the same time a kid can go to a bad school that does little to prepare the child for college, and he/she gets in because he/she got in the top 10% of that school. Kid 1 can have an SAT higher than kid 2 and be left at home because his school had better teachers and academics that prepared more students for college. that school might have half the school that performed better in HS than the bad school, yet the bad school sends unqualified children to those Texas colleges.

I really hope I didn't muddle the waters worse and actually understood it correctly.

The expression is "muddy the waters"...but you did understand it.

[prospero63]

Originally Posted by carlton_fritz

Are you not understanding the situation? A kid can go to a tough school, one that prepares the child for college, and come in just below the 10% and not qualify for a Texas college.

I understand it just fine. TRY HARDER. You know what the target is. Achieve it or STFU with the sniveling about how your dream was crushed because you can't go to bon-fire like your daddy did.

At the same time a kid can go to a bad school that does little to prepare the child for college, and he/she gets in because he/she got in the top 10% of that school.

Congrats to that kid. Unlike the whiner above, they did what was necessary. Good for them.

Kid 1 can have an SAT higher than kid 2 and be left at home because his school had better teachers and academics that prepared more students for college. that school might have half the school that performed better in HS than the bad school, yet the bad school sends unqualified children to those Texas colleges.

I really hope I didn't muddle the waters worse and actually understood it correctly.

So be it. Kid #2 met the qualifications. Kid #1 didn't. Pick another school to go to. Also, I disagree with the premise of "good" and "bad" school here. Folks like to toss those around to make the point, but what it actually tends to mean is "my kid went to a good school" and "that kid went to a bad school". The quality of the school is frequently secondary to "mine = good" and "theirs = bad".

[Me2]

I don't see anything racist with anything Omega man said. Might be borderline bigot but that's not a bad thing IMO.

[NCC-1701]

I'm not racist you all just call me master...

[Bill]

Originally Posted by prospero63

I understand it just fine. TRY HARDER. You know what the target is. Achieve it or STFU with the sniveling about how your dream was crushed because you can't go to bon-fire like your daddy did.



Congrats to that kid. Unlike the whiner above, they did what was necessary. Good for them.



So be it. Kid #2 met the qualifications. Kid #1 didn't. Pick another school to go to. Also, I disagree with the premise of "good" and "bad" school here. Folks like to toss those around to make the point, but what it actually tends to mean is "my kid went to a good school" and "that kid went to a bad school". The quality of the school is frequently secondary to "mine = good" and "theirs = bad".

So, you are happy to congratulate the kid, even though his/her parents are idiots for sending him/her to a school where (s)he could BE top 10%. To quote you, the parents "did what was necessary".

Good and bad isn't necessarily subjective. Despite our "Robin Hood" system of school finance, where well off school districts are paired up with "economically challenged" districts and "rich" districts are forced to send part of their tax money to the "poor" district to equalize funding (wealth redistribution?), all schools are not equal.

Take North Forest ISD, for example. Sadly, their kids have about a snowball's chance in Houston-in-the-Summer of being prepared for college. To put it bluntly, their schools suck. Now, some kids in North Forest schools are going to be top 10%. Does that mean the coursework they took, and the education they received are on par with, say, the coursework and education at a Memorial HS? I'm betting not.



Edit: To those not from Texas, this subject matter isn't a hijack, because "top 10%" was instituted into law right after courts ruled that race couldn't be used as a determining factor in Texas higher education admissions, or something like that. IOW, it is the kinder, gentler version of affirmative action.

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by prospero63

No, you are wrong. You made an incorrect statement, and don't have the grace to admit it. Consequently you are trying to say that you meant full rides, etc. etc. to make excuses when a simple "I was mistaken" would have done.

Here's another fast one found on google. Werner Scott Scholarship



Where are your facts to support your claim of "Those are primarily funded but [sic] the government give or take a few small privately funded organizations"? Just posting this statement does not make it true.



I read, and comprehended, what you wrote. Once I did, you tried to claim that what you wrote isn't what you meant to write. Accountability is clearly something else you've fallen short on learning.



Grants and scholarships are two totally different things. Although even then, not all grants are government funded.

So basically you are saying that no scholarships and or grants are handed out more to minorities, then to white. That's incorrect. I started off talking about government funded scholarships I have been talking about those with the exception to the privately funded organizations. Let's not get off topic and contradict ourselves. I said that the government gives out scholarships to minorities, over whites. When you brought up the Texas scholarship that had nothing to do with it being supplied by the government. All of my points with the exception of a few were all about the government supplied scholarships dealing with race. Not dealing with other organizations.

You keep bring up scholarships in general. My First post in this thread was about government scholarships. You keep trying to make me get of that topic by putting up link and doing Google searches about race scholarships in general. Did I rebuttal to your general scholarships, yes. But apparently I need to give you a full research report on race scholarships for you to understand my point about how minorities get more aid and scholarships then white people. What the f*ck is so hard to understand about that.

I am not wrong, and who the f*ck are you to tell me that I make excuses. And what give you the right to make it personal by telling me that I am not accountable, and that I didn't learn anything in school. I solely stuck to my point that the government gives out scholarships to minorities and only minorities, specifically talking about race. Not other scholarships.

If you want to keep up this argument take it to PM's. I am done with your ignorance and unwillingness to understand, and trying to make me contradict myself to make you look like a god or something.

Or better yet you think what you think, and I will think whats right.

[prospero63]

Originally Posted by bill_daniels

So, you are happy to congratulate the kid, even though his/her parents are idiots for sending him/her to a school where (s)he could BE top 10%. To quote you, the parents "did what was necessary".

Yep. I've been consistent throughout. Good for the kid who did what they needed to be in the top 10% of their school. Idiot for the parents that would knowingly and willfully send their kid to a school that, by your own admission, does not prepare them for college.

Now, some kids in North Forest schools are going to be top 10%. Does that mean the coursework they took, and the education they received are on par with, say, the coursework and education at a Memorial HS? I'm betting not.

Out of curiosity, your kids go to Memorial or North Forest?

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by aerovette
In my opinion ANY foriegners should be able to attend our colleges BUT, just as and out of state student pays higher tuition, their tuitions should be TRIPLE what a legal resident is. That way for each one of them that goes to college here, two citizens would be able to attend for free.

Originally Posted by prospero63

Yes, because adopting welfare (free education) and socialist (from those with the most to those with the least) policies is the correct answer.

This is not welfare. This is taking care of your own. My wife and I are STRUGGLING to send our daughter to college and it pisses me off to no end that people who are NOT citizens are given a free ride. Time was in Texas, no resident of the state paid for college. That wasn't welfare, that was takiing care of the people that support the economy and contribute to the state via taxes and work.

It is also not Socialism because it is not equal disbursement across the board. Grade requirement and acceptability criteria would still need to be met.

You wanna play, you gotta pay. Again, I don't care if they get their education here, but it needs to benefit those that are providing that ability...the US citizens.

I believe this whether there is a jackass, or a Republican in office.

[GRN ENVY]

Originally Posted by prospero63

No, you are wrong. You made an incorrect statement, and don't have the grace to admit it. Consequently you are trying to say that you meant full rides, etc. etc. to make excuses when a simple "I was mistaken" would have done.

Here's another fast one found on google. Werner Scott Scholarship



Where are your facts to support your claim of "Those are primarily funded but [sic] the government give or take a few small privately funded organizations"? Just posting this statement does not make it true.



I read, and comprehended, what you wrote. Once I did, you tried to claim that what you wrote isn't what you meant to write. Accountability is clearly something else you've fallen short on learning.



Grants and scholarships are two totally different things. Although even then, not all grants are government funded.

You said I needed links to prove my statements true. Why don't you get links to prove me wrong?????