Apple iPhone 7 Launch's with Black Male/White Female pics

[Katzndogz]

Remember they aren't really treated like cattle until they are slaughtered.

 

[LuckyDuck]

Remember they aren't really treated like cattle until they are slaughtered.

Slaves are treated were treated like livestock.

 

[Katzndogz]

Remember they aren't really treated like cattle until they are slaughtered.

Slaves are treated were treated like livestock.

Slaves were livestock, but they were not slaughtered and sold by the pound.

If you imagine that my outrage will be tickled by the mention of slavery, you have an active imagination. I do not suffer from presentism.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

 

[SixFoot]

The media puts this stuff out there to make impressionable young minds think this is normal. Race mixing is anti-White.


Apple Events - Keynote September 2016

Why's it anti-white and not anti-black?

Also, if you don't want to hang around with people because of their color, then better for those of a different color it would seem.

Because for a nig to breed with a white improves the nigs blood line. Conversely when a white breeds with a nig it diminishes said bloodline. Therefore it is a gain for the nig at the expense of the white. No one can really blame a nig for wanting to improve it's bloodline. But one has to wonder what could cause such self loathing amongst white women to want to diminish their own blood line. Daddy issues, and self esteem are likely the prime culprets.

So when an Asian breeds with a white then the Asians are improving the white's bloodline then?

Mathematically, YES!

 

[NCC1701]

You are something else, by even the low standards I have for liberals you are certainly king ratfucker. Liar or illiterate, I can't decide..

My point, for the third time, is that the data for black kids supports the original article on mixed race, making your dismissal of it bullshit. How come you can't grasp that simple concept? Typical liberal, if you cant understand or win, then lie.

Secondly, I would not be talking failure if I were you, as you can't seem to read. Nevermind your nonsensical bs explanation of the chart that you made up, the original source data below is quite clear that it is percentage households and not cash. Table A8 in the document, page 34


camarota-welfare-final.pdf


All right pick one mothertrucker, you are a monumental liar or you are monumentally illiterate. Which is it? you can pick

Sadly, you're too fucking retarded to understand there's nothing in there which speaks to interracial relationships, which you have repeatedly claimed, was your point.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

Sadly I just proved you can't read, so your conclusions are just as retarded

Moron... you bitch about black men with white women...

I am on a smartphone and can't post links but look up how 82% of black father white mother children end up on welfare.

...but then post an article about "black households."



I would remind you what a loser you are but I'm sure you hear that enough from your family.

hey dipshit, you got caught in a lie about chart reading, black households with children was the topic, and it showed you wrong.

You abandoned your own argument. That's how demented it was.

You started by idiotically claiming families with a black father/white mother end up on welfare 82% of the time.

Your first attempt to demonstrate that was based on an unscientific poll.

Your second attempt was to show black households, which fails to show the black father/white mother idiocy you started with.

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

 

[NCC1701]

The numbers show blacks don't marry much and divorce at high rates. 70% of their kids are born out of wedlock. When they do marry the blacks in here and their supportive liberal liars would have us believe that white women suddenly are rushing to black men. They are not, by far the highest intermarriages are with Asians, hispanics, and Indians.

Interracial Couples in the United States . . . By the Numbers

White & Hispanic – 37 percent of all interracial marriages

White & Asian – 13.7 percent

White & Black – 7.9 percent


Asspotass says that standardized math scores in the US are the white mans lies, but then he claims white women are flocking to him. If you have any brains, you can figure that BS out. Funny, when I was single it would have very easy to go after a black women as dating sites are full of them, but you will never see a white guy boast about it like a black man does with white women. Tacit admission of their inferiority that white women are a prize.

It should be the black women boasting about landing a white man, the have more stable marriages than all groups, and if a white woman marries a black man, they are twice as likely to get divorced than if she married white.

White Wife & Asian Husband – 59 percent more likely to divorce in comparison to same-race white couples
White Wife & Black Husband – 50 percent more likely to divorce
Asian Wife & White Husband – 4 percent more likely to divorce
Black Wife & White Husband – 44 percent less likely to divorce.

 

[NCC1701]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

 

[Faun]

Sadly, you're too fucking retarded to understand there's nothing in there which speaks to interracial relationships, which you have repeatedly claimed, was your point.

Oh well, c'est la vie.

Sadly I just proved you can't read, so your conclusions are just as retarded

Moron... you bitch about black men with white women...

I am on a smartphone and can't post links but look up how 82% of black father white mother children end up on welfare.

...but then post an article about "black households."



I would remind you what a loser you are but I'm sure you hear that enough from your family.

hey dipshit, you got caught in a lie about chart reading, black households with children was the topic, and it showed you wrong.

You abandoned your own argument. That's how demented it was.

You started by idiotically claiming families with a black father/white mother end up on welfare 82% of the time.

Your first attempt to demonstrate that was based on an unscientific poll.

Your second attempt was to show black households, which fails to show the black father/white mother idiocy you started with.

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

Repeating a lie? I quoted you talking about interracial families and then trying to prove your claim with numbers that were about black households, not interracial families. That's what you did and here you are, lying by saying I'm lying about what you did.

 

[Faun]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

Of course you took it off topic when you abandoned your argument about interracial couples and tried to make it about black households.

 

[NCC1701]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

Of course you took it off topic when you abandoned your argument about interracial couples and tried to make it about black households.

what I said liar, was that the latter data supported the first article, it wasn't my fault you were so damned stupid and can't follow it. I never abandoned the first conclusion you shit-mouthed liar, show the post or admit you lied.

You never answered what you are, either really stupid or a compulsive liar after I showed you were wrong about the 82% number on black kids. So which is it?

 

[NCC1701]

Sadly I just proved you can't read, so your conclusions are just as retarded

Moron... you bitch about black men with white women...

I am on a smartphone and can't post links but look up how 82% of black father white mother children end up on welfare.

...but then post an article about "black households."



I would remind you what a loser you are but I'm sure you hear that enough from your family.

hey dipshit, you got caught in a lie about chart reading, black households with children was the topic, and it showed you wrong.

You abandoned your own argument. That's how demented it was.

You started by idiotically claiming families with a black father/white mother end up on welfare 82% of the time.

Your first attempt to demonstrate that was based on an unscientific poll.

Your second attempt was to show black households, which fails to show the black father/white mother idiocy you started with.

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

Repeating a lie? I quoted you talking about interracial families and then trying to prove your claim with numbers that were about black households, not interracial families. That's what you did and here you are, lying by saying I'm lying about what you did.

you keep repeating your lie that I abandoned the interracial number by using the black number as support for it. That is flat out wrong, I stated right away I was using the second number as support for the first.

If black kids homes require welfare at the 82% level, then it is very likely that the kids with white mother and black father do as well. It is very strong support for what you called 'unscientific' poll I the first article. Black men suck no matter who they bang.

You have nothing that backs you up, nothing. yet you continue on as if you have some point because you say so. Sorry to break it to you, but your opinion is worthless.

 

[Faun]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

Of course you took it off topic when you abandoned your argument about interracial couples and tried to make it about black households.

what I said liar, was that the latter data supported the first article, it wasn't my fault you were so damned stupid and can't follow it. I never abandoned the first conclusion you shit-mouthed liar, show the post or admit you lied.

You never answered what you are, either really stupid or a compulsive liar after I showed you were wrong about the 82% number on black kids. So which is it?

But you're either stupid or lying or both to claim the latter data supported the former since they each spoke to two different demographics. One was about interracial families while the other was about black households.

 

[Faun]

Moron... you bitch about black men with white women...

​

...but then post an article about "black households."



I would remind you what a loser you are but I'm sure you hear that enough from your family.

hey dipshit, you got caught in a lie about chart reading, black households with children was the topic, and it showed you wrong.

You abandoned your own argument. That's how demented it was.

You started by idiotically claiming families with a black father/white mother end up on welfare 82% of the time.

Your first attempt to demonstrate that was based on an unscientific poll.

Your second attempt was to show black households, which fails to show the black father/white mother idiocy you started with.

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

Repeating a lie? I quoted you talking about interracial families and then trying to prove your claim with numbers that were about black households, not interracial families. That's what you did and here you are, lying by saying I'm lying about what you did.

...then it is very likely...

And there goes your entire argument down the proverbial toilet.

 

[NCC1701]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

Of course you took it off topic when you abandoned your argument about interracial couples and tried to make it about black households.

what I said liar, was that the latter data supported the first article, it wasn't my fault you were so damned stupid and can't follow it. I never abandoned the first conclusion you shit-mouthed liar, show the post or admit you lied.

You never answered what you are, either really stupid or a compulsive liar after I showed you were wrong about the 82% number on black kids. So which is it?

But you're either stupid or lying or both to claim the latter data supported the former since they each spoke to two different demographics. One was about interracial families while the other was about black households.

dumbfuck, it was black households with kids, not black households. you just cant get it straight can you, I say you are incompetant

 

[NCC1701]

hey dipshit, you got caught in a lie about chart reading, black households with children was the topic, and it showed you wrong.

You abandoned your own argument. That's how demented it was.

You started by idiotically claiming families with a black father/white mother end up on welfare 82% of the time.

Your first attempt to demonstrate that was based on an unscientific poll.

Your second attempt was to show black households, which fails to show the black father/white mother idiocy you started with.

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

Repeating a lie? I quoted you talking about interracial families and then trying to prove your claim with numbers that were about black households, not interracial families. That's what you did and here you are, lying by saying I'm lying about what you did.

...then it is very likely...

And there goes your entire argument down the proverbial toilet.

no actually it is quite supportive of the first article, which again liar I didn't say, someone else did.

 

[Faun]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

Of course you took it off topic when you abandoned your argument about interracial couples and tried to make it about black households.

what I said liar, was that the latter data supported the first article, it wasn't my fault you were so damned stupid and can't follow it. I never abandoned the first conclusion you shit-mouthed liar, show the post or admit you lied.

You never answered what you are, either really stupid or a compulsive liar after I showed you were wrong about the 82% number on black kids. So which is it?

But you're either stupid or lying or both to claim the latter data supported the former since they each spoke to two different demographics. One was about interracial families while the other was about black households.

dumbfuck, it was black households with kids, not black households. you just cant get it straight can you, I say you are incompetant

It was about black households. I can't help you're unable to distinguish between black households and interracial families.

 

[Faun]

You abandoned your own argument. That's how demented it was.

You started by idiotically claiming families with a black father/white mother end up on welfare 82% of the time.

Your first attempt to demonstrate that was based on an unscientific poll.

Your second attempt was to show black households, which fails to show the black father/white mother idiocy you started with.

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

Repeating a lie? I quoted you talking about interracial families and then trying to prove your claim with numbers that were about black households, not interracial families. That's what you did and here you are, lying by saying I'm lying about what you did.

...then it is very likely...

And there goes your entire argument down the proverbial toilet.

no actually it is quite supportive of the first article, which again liar I didn't say, someone else did.

The moment your argument comes down to, "it is very likely," it's over. See ya!

 

[NCC1701]

do you actually think by repeating a lie it somehow makes it true? I didn't claim the 82% number, the article did dumfukker, and for the 4th time, what I said was the 82% number from the first article, was supported by the 82% number from the data I provided on black kids. If black men don't support all black kids at that rate, they are likely to do the same with interracial. That is not an abandonment, that was supporting and reiterating what the first article says. You have nothing that refutes me, nothing of any substance but your own insipid lies

Holy fuck you are stupid

Repeating a lie? I quoted you talking about interracial families and then trying to prove your claim with numbers that were about black households, not interracial families. That's what you did and here you are, lying by saying I'm lying about what you did.

...then it is very likely...

And there goes your entire argument down the proverbial toilet.

no actually it is quite supportive of the first article, which again liar I didn't say, someone else did.

The moment your argument comes down to, "it is very likely," it's over. See ya!

well no it isn't, you have nothing but your claim the first article is wrong simply because you said so, that is not evidence and as we can see here in this discussion you are a lying incompetent, so your opinion is worthless about the 82% number in the first article.

 

[flacaltenn]

Moderation Note:

For the sake of discussion -- let's put slavery and family references out of the scope of discussion. It's an AD. That's what the topic is. Don't use it as an excuse to race-bait or identify with racism..

personal family? I am taking this thread to be about interracial relationships, off topic?

Of course you took it off topic when you abandoned your argument about interracial couples and tried to make it about black households.

There were no specific allegations in what I said. I found ONE marginal instance of a reference to "family" and saw that this CURRENT event had gone way back 250 yrs to slavery. And the last thing I wanted to do was to interrupt or kill a topic which COULD be great.. Moderation doesn't worry much about content. Just that the topics stay clean and readable and don't wander off into one side or another of a racial "agenda"..

So don't worry about what I meant. Just stick to the topic and discuss the event.