This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - byron2008
« on: February 20, 2010, 01:16:18 PM »
Thanks again guys for your input, I really have a lot to think about. BikePilot, I'm actually from Fairfax so if I were to go to GMU I could live at home and pay in-state, this seems like the most affordable option. Unfortunately, I am on the waitlist and I don't know what my chances of getting off of it are or even how to get off of it to begin with.
« on: February 19, 2010, 09:57:30 PM »
bigs5068, thanks for your reply. I am not interested in making big bucks as a lawyer, I'd be perfectly fine with earning a salary that could provide the basic necessities for me and my future family. What I am concerned about is being saddled with crippling debt that will follow me around for the rest of my life. Since our society is based on consumerism, buying unnecessary crap on credit, and incurring debt,I want to try my best to avoid attending a vocational school that would not only put me in a similar financial hole but also not even be able guarantee me a job. I would like to get a better idea about how graduates manage their law school debt, what their repayment options are, the length of time it takes to repay, and so forth.
« on: February 19, 2010, 05:40:17 PM »
I am pondering whether or not to enroll in law school this fall. I have been reading a number of horror stories on a blog called "Exposing the Law School Scam" which claims that the job market is overly saturated, that the demand for legal jobs is actually shrinking, and that even graduates from top schools are being forced to take insultingly low salaries (I saw one posting on Craigslist in NYC that offered $15/hr. to an "experienced litigator") or even having to wait tables since they are unable find any work. This seems like a nightmare when one has to consider taking on a debt load that approaches $100k. I would love to hear people's thoughts, especially recent graduates and 2/3L's who are preparing to enter (hopefully) the workforce. On a personal note, I have been accepted at four law schools- LSU, Ole Miss, Rutgers Camden, and Hofstra, and have been waitlisted at George Mason and American. Should I press on or choose a different career path? Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated!
« on: February 28, 2009, 04:53:52 AM »
« on: February 22, 2009, 12:14:51 AM »
What is it that I said that any of you would classify as "stupid" exactly? And Gretchen you still refuse to answer my simple question of how certain terms have come to be offensive when they were not previously considered so. I think the obvious reason is that you don't have an answer or explanation, you just love to pretend like you're offended at anything that isn't PC.
« on: February 21, 2009, 04:28:53 AM »
Either edit the civil rights' preachers' comments as being racist and discriminatory or spend a year overseas in a country where black people face real prejudice and discrimination. Learn how to speak Spanish or Portuguese. Even better, learn how to speak the language of the African tribes that fought against and captured members of rival tribes and subsequently sold them to European slave drivers for arms. Then speak to me about racism and prejudice and the meaning of words. While you're at it, explain to me how your people have had it worse than the millions of Native Americans of this land who have been systematically slaughtered. The black card is pathetic.
« on: February 20, 2009, 10:27:15 PM »
Right... I'm the uncultured one? I should be beat up for saying "mulatto", yet no one can explain why the meaning of an inoffensive word has suddenly become offensive? So now the new fashion is to say "biracial", and, who knows, a generation from now saying "biracial" could be construed as being offensive too. And, yes, I was advised by my local KKK leaders that "mulatto" was in poor taste, how'd you know? The fact that I have lived in a country that has the largest black population in the entire world shows that I am unfamiliar with the "various segments" of the US? What does one thing have to do with the other? I have lived in the North, South, and West of the United States, I have also lived outside of the country in a place with a far greater black population than any other country in the world, but I am "out of touch". If only I had known that I could have just turned to Wikipedia for my answers to centuries-old questions! MLK and Malcolm referred to blacks as "negroes", but now "negro" is an offensive term, just as "mulatto" is, but nobody can explain WHY or HOW said terms became "offensive". I asked you why. When did the shift occur? Where, when, and how did inoffensive terms used by everyone suddenly become offensive? Do you have an actual answer, or will you just avoid the question by repeating that it wasn't OK then or now? Maybe you should go down to Brazil or any other Latin American country and explain to all of them that calling blacks "negro", which literally translates to "black", is offensive.
« on: February 20, 2009, 08:54:20 PM »
The uppity negro female? First of all, I didn't know that you were black (the picture of the chick from Mean Girls doesn't really help your case in the assumption that I believed you were black), not that it would have made any difference to the way I responded to your post anyway. But is becoming abundantly clear that this kind of language just goes to show how deeply the mindset of perpetual persecution is ingrained in your psyche, even when said in jest. Guess what? I was born in the 1980's. I wasn't a slave driver, my ancestors came to this country in 1921 from Ireland. I guess that we didn't face any kind of discrimination either, right? And thanks for letting me know that "mulatto" isn't an acceptable term, which is the exact reason why I used it, to show that this silly political correctness has gone too far. Maybe we should go back in time and edit every speech given by black leaders who called themselves "negroes" too? And what exactly has changed that would make either of the words offensive now when they were perfectly acceptable thirty or forty years ago? How did words like "Oriental", "negro" and "mulatto" suddenly become offensive? I would really like to know why you feel that way. As a mulatta yourself, I'm surprised that you're not more understanding of my position. I've lived in Brazil, where people of mixed Portuguese/African ancestry proudly call themselves mulattos, and "white" Brazilians call them mulattos as well, without any tinge of racism or prejudice. I wonder what the difference is between here and there? Maybe it's because they are more worried about surviving day to day and don't have the luxury to go to law school (or any secondary school for that matter) and female dog about how bad they have it.
« on: February 20, 2009, 05:20:59 PM »
Gretchen: As I'm sure you noticed, I used "mulatto" on purpose to see who would complain about it first and to show how uptight political correctness makes people. Congratulations, you win. If you don't know the definition of the word, there are plenty of online dictionaries that can help you out with that. Also, I didn't mean to suggest that cross burnings never take place, only that they occur so rarely as to be a completely negligible statistic. When I say that the minorities are more protected than the majority, I am referring to the institution of affirmative action and groups like the SPLC and the ADL. Of course, if anyone formed a group to protect the rights of white people there would be a public furor. Also, try starting a "White Law Students" club or group and see how well that goes over. Do you see my point?
Agree: You completely missed my point on the Imus issue, which was that you complain when a racist comment by a washed up old fart that nobody listens to is headline news yet don't complain about how the same corporation is broadcasting videos that make black people look far worse than anything Imus or any other racist could say about them. What does Marilyn Manson have to do with anything? You are projecting your own racist views on me because you don't want to admit your own racism. You just proved your bigotry when you called me a foolish white man. Yet, although I never would do so, if I replied by calling you a "foolish black man" I could take a wild guess as to how that would turn out. You are clearly not in favor of an end to racism, you just advocate the kind of discrimination (affirmative action) that benefits your race. White racism and prejudice exists, I know that from living in the South, but it also works the other way around. If you look at the FBI's statistics on hate crimes, for example, you will see that a white person is 2.5 more times to be murdered by a black person than vice versa. It's also interesting to note that there were 2 million reported incidents of black on white general crime (which is not considered hate crime) and 1700 incidents of white on black "hate crime" in 2002. I'm sure you have an explanation regarding that which will blame whitey too. Also, what's your hangup with the KKK? You would think from all of your invocations of the group that we are living in 1870. Do some research, the FBI thoroughly infiltrated and subverted the KKK decades ago through their COINTELPRO projects (much as they did with racist black groups like the Black Panthers).
« on: February 18, 2009, 11:10:43 PM »
"Byron suggested that he fully understands what it means to be a black man in America, understands the plight of black people simply by having a few black acquaintances in his life." Wow, I guess you don't understand what libel is yet, but you'd be in hot water making a ridiculous statement like that in your professional life. I only said that I identify with black people in the sense that I grew up around them and understand the culture. The go-go comment was an inside joke that nobody outside of the DC area will understand (you obviously didn't go to Howard). Again you talk about the "plight" of black people. Which plight are you referring to exactly? Minorities are more protected than the majority nowadays and I think you know that, and your cross-burning reference is only off by a decade or five, but that's alright. As I stated, you refuse to live in the real world and you won't drop the notion of perpetual persecution. And it's interesting that you mention Imus' "nappy headed hoes" comment, while of course failing to realize that the network he broadcasted on is the same one that owns BET and MTV, bastions of the reinforcement of negative racial stereotypes (glorifying black-on-black violence and drug dealing, objectifying black women). You apparently take no issue with that fact, nor the fact that the black community is doing itself a greater disservice than any Klan member or racist employer could ever do to by the way they portray themselves in popular culture. But of course it's easier to play the victim and always blame whitey, isn't it? Slavery ended 150 years ago, there's no more Jim Crow, a mulatto is president for God's sake. Your grievances are outdated!