Leftist With a Klan Hood gets his Tail Kicked by Black Trump Supporter: Hilarious (Video)

[Roudy]

That you support both Obama and Hillary means you remain a dumbass.

Spits an unrepentant Bush voter.

The irony.

Is your claim I voted for Bush? I'm going to need a link for the proof you have of that. Remember, what you said, it's put up or shut up time. I'm waiting.

The irony.

Holyfuckingshit!

Yet another brain-dead conservative pretending he didn't vote for Bush.

I can't say that I blame you since he was a royal fuck up of extreme magnitude.

Yet another Liberal that, when asked for proof of a claim, refuses to do so but still makes the claim.

Since you can't provide proof of YOUR claim, your claim is dismissed. Remember, YOU'RE the one that demanded proof of something claimed by another USMB poster then dismissed the claim because of no link. Typical double standard and you wonder why you're viewed as stupid motherfuckers.

LOLOLOLOL

As if you're man enough to dismiss me.

Your comedy routine aside, I know you voted for Bush ... probably twice cause you are that stupid. You know you voted for Bush. Hell, who doesn't know it.

I'm just reveling, for the moment, in watching you pretend like you didn't. Then I get extra entertainment, which is all you're good for, watching you pull a 180 and say you never denied voting for him when I show how I know you voted for him.

Said the person who voted for the divisive America hating Obama....

 

[Roudy]

Is your claim I voted for Bush? I'm going to need a link for the proof you have of that. Remember, what you said, it's put up or shut up time. I'm waiting.

The irony.

Holyfuckingshit!

Yet another brain-dead conservative pretending he didn't vote for Bush.

I can't say that I blame you since he was a royal fuck up of extreme magnitude.

Yet another Liberal that, when asked for proof of a claim, refuses to do so but still makes the claim.

Since you can't provide proof of YOUR claim, your claim is dismissed. Remember, YOU'RE the one that demanded proof of something claimed by another USMB poster then dismissed the claim because of no link. Typical double standard and you wonder why you're viewed as stupid motherfuckers.

LOLOLOLOL

As if you're man enough to dismiss me.

Your comedy routine aside, I know you voted for Bush ... probably twice cause you are that stupid. You know you voted for Bush. Hell, who doesn't know it.

I'm just reveling, for the moment, in watching you pretend like you didn't. Then I get extra entertainment, which is all you're good for, watching you pull a 180 and say you never denied voting for him when I show how I know you voted for him.

If you know, prove it.

I know you voted for black skin color and twice. You know you did and don't have the guts to admit it.

I never denied voting for a black man. I denied your idiotic claim I did so because he's black. Evidence of that is two-fold. One, I didn't vote for him in the primary; and 2, my reason for voting for him is the same reason I always vote for the most Liberal running for president .... because they nominate Liberal judges to federal benches and in particular, the Supreme Court. Nothing about skin color or vaginas even factors into that equation.

Yes, you really are that stupid to claim you know better than I why I voted for Obama.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Roudy]

You can lie about what you do but doing it proves you've lowered yourself to a 2nd class person.

You don't even comprehend that you projecting your homoerotic fantasies reveals far more about you than it does me, do ya, rightie?

That you think my proving you kiss his black ass as anything but proving you pucker up to it reveals you're just another stupid Liberal motherfucker. You like doing it but don't have the guts to admit it. Typical coward.

Awww, poor, demented conservative. You're quite the cry baby, eh?

You're quite clear the typical Liberal pussy. I guess if I voted for an unqualified black as President and he fucked it up, I'd avoid admitting skin color was a motivation.

Your dementia persists. If Obama fucked up as you delude yourself i to believing, he wouldn't have a JAR on par with Reagan after 86 months in office.

If you wanna see what a fuckup looks like, look at your guy, Bush, whose JAR was in the 20's at this point.

That's easy. The media which has turned into the propaganda arm of the Democrat party shields and protects Obama.

 

[Roudy]

That you think my proving you kiss his black ass as anything but proving you pucker up to it reveals you're just another stupid Liberal motherfucker. You like doing it but don't have the guts to admit it. Typical coward.

Awww, poor, demented conservative. You're quite the cry baby, eh?

You're quite clear the typical Liberal pussy. I guess if I voted for an unqualified black as President and he fucked it up, I'd avoid admitting skin color was a motivation.

Your dementia persists. If Obama fucked up as you delude yourself i to believing, he wouldn't have a JAR on par with Reagan after 86 months in office.

If you wanna see what a fuckup looks like, look at your guy, Bush, whose JAR was in the 20's at this point.

If you want to see what a fuck up looks like, find a mirror. That you vote Liberal proves you're nothing more than a retarded moron.

Scratches a Bush voter.



The irony.

Seven years later, Obama and his clown followers are still whining and blaming Bush.

 

[Roudy]

"In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:

I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.

So therefore, to conclude, the KKK were indeed Democrats? I'm just wondering how it is that blacks have been brainwashed to have such blind loyalty to a party that gave rise to the KKK?

Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.

Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.

dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

 

[Roudy]

You'll notice that virtually all of the support for blacks came from the Liberal north while the racism was primarily the conservative south. Until just a few decades ago, the south voted primarily Democrat, now they vote primarily Republican.

Regardless which party they belong to, the south has always been more conservative than the north and the north has always been more progressive than the south.

So therefore, to conclude, the KKK were indeed Democrats? I'm just wondering how it is that blacks have been brainwashed to have such blind loyalty to a party that gave rise to the KKK?

"In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:

I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

Moron .... again ... the parties switched. The racist south which seceded to keep slavery and which started the KKK was largely Democrat then.

Today, they're largely Republican.

Blacks were mostly Republican then. Today, they're mostly Democrat.

Blacks aren't brainwashed to vote Democrat. They're smart enough to recognize the racist conservative south switched from Democrat to Republican. Why would they support the political party of the racist south?

The parties didn't switch. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Democrats have managed to fool Americans into thinking they are the party of tolerance and equality. They aren't, in fact Democrats are the most intolerant fascistic people, with a strong vein American socialistic based principles. They divide and demonize Americans along racial, ethnic, and economic lines in order to gain votes. Just because they call republicans "racist" doesn't make them so. Republicans still call themselves the party of Lincoln. Blacks should learn the history of the party they are so loyal too.

There it is again -- the bottomless well of ignorance blissfully enjoyed by armchair wags who get their history from Googly Image meme generators and easily-refuted blogs with no links.

In the mid-18th Century the RP became the home of Abolitionists -- which means Liberals. It formed in 1854 out of that group and out of the Whig Party (Lincoln had been one), which believed in Big Government. The Whigs fell apart because they could not reconcile between themselves how they wanted to proceed on slavery, so the new Republican Party took on that faction that wanted Abolition. The Democratic Party at the same time was the conservative home of "states rights" and smaller decentralized government.

Given time, by the end of that century and after several political successes, the RP started taking on the interests of the corporations and the rich, while the DP absorbed a growing populist movement ---- which is how it came to be the choice of, and sympathetic to, immigrants... minorities ... trade unions and the like.

To pretend political parties just sit there in one ideological spot and never budge through time is to expose oneself as eminently ignorant. Politics doesn't work that way and never did.

who are you referring to as rich? Isn't Soro's rich, he ain't no fkn republican. Who the fk are you referring to?

The left fails to mention that the socialist commie candidate Obama had record amount of super pack funding at his disposal during his election campaign.

 

[Conservative65]

So race being used to deny isn't racism either?

Nope. It is discrimination but it's not racism.

You do know the difference, right?

When it uses race as a factor, it's racism. If race was used to deny, are you saying it wouldn't be racism?

Correct, that's what I'm saying.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. That's not present in an AA law, even if it does discriminate.

Now if the AA law said "whites should get X job because blacks are inferior" --- that would be racism.

Moreover .... I've been passed over for at least two jobs in favor of other applicants who were the same race as I due to AA, so it still doesn't work.

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

 

[Pogo]

Nope. It is discrimination but it's not racism.

You do know the difference, right?

When it uses race as a factor, it's racism. If race was used to deny, are you saying it wouldn't be racism?

Correct, that's what I'm saying.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. That's not present in an AA law, even if it does discriminate.

Now if the AA law said "whites should get X job because blacks are inferior" --- that would be racism.

Moreover .... I've been passed over for at least two jobs in favor of other applicants who were the same race as I due to AA, so it still doesn't work.

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

 

[jc456]

When it uses race as a factor, it's racism. If race was used to deny, are you saying it wouldn't be racism?

Correct, that's what I'm saying.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. That's not present in an AA law, even if it does discriminate.

Now if the AA law said "whites should get X job because blacks are inferior" --- that would be racism.

Moreover .... I've been passed over for at least two jobs in favor of other applicants who were the same race as I due to AA, so it still doesn't work.

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

 

[Conservative65]

When it uses race as a factor, it's racism. If race was used to deny, are you saying it wouldn't be racism?

Correct, that's what I'm saying.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. That's not present in an AA law, even if it does discriminate.

Now if the AA law said "whites should get X job because blacks are inferior" --- that would be racism.

Moreover .... I've been passed over for at least two jobs in favor of other applicants who were the same race as I due to AA, so it still doesn't work.

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

 

[Pogo]

"In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:

I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.

So therefore, to conclude, the KKK were indeed Democrats? I'm just wondering how it is that blacks have been brainwashed to have such blind loyalty to a party that gave rise to the KKK?

Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.

Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.

dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

 

[Pogo]

Correct, that's what I'm saying.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. That's not present in an AA law, even if it does discriminate.

Now if the AA law said "whites should get X job because blacks are inferior" --- that would be racism.

Moreover .... I've been passed over for at least two jobs in favor of other applicants who were the same race as I due to AA, so it still doesn't work.

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

 

[Conservative65]

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

 

[Pogo]

Correct, that's what I'm saying.

Racism is the belief that one race is superior/inferior to another. That's not present in an AA law, even if it does discriminate.

Now if the AA law said "whites should get X job because blacks are inferior" --- that would be racism.

Moreover .... I've been passed over for at least two jobs in favor of other applicants who were the same race as I due to AA, so it still doesn't work.

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trolling (non)quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman".

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

Dumb shit.

 

[Conservative65]

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman"

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

What you can't figure out is that you made a claim you were more qualified. Prove it. If you can't provide objective proof of it, it's an opinion as to whether you were more qualified.

Can you provide the contact information of that employer so I can verify your claim?

 

[Pogo]

So therefore, to conclude, the KKK were indeed Democrats? I'm just wondering how it is that blacks have been brainwashed to have such blind loyalty to a party that gave rise to the KKK?

"In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:

I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

Moron .... again ... the parties switched. The racist south which seceded to keep slavery and which started the KKK was largely Democrat then.

Today, they're largely Republican.

Blacks were mostly Republican then. Today, they're mostly Democrat.

Blacks aren't brainwashed to vote Democrat. They're smart enough to recognize the racist conservative south switched from Democrat to Republican. Why would they support the political party of the racist south?

The parties didn't switch. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Democrats have managed to fool Americans into thinking they are the party of tolerance and equality. They aren't, in fact Democrats are the most intolerant fascistic people, with a strong vein American socialistic based principles. They divide and demonize Americans along racial, ethnic, and economic lines in order to gain votes. Just because they call republicans "racist" doesn't make them so. Republicans still call themselves the party of Lincoln. Blacks should learn the history of the party they are so loyal too.

There it is again -- the bottomless well of ignorance blissfully enjoyed by armchair wags who get their history from Googly Image meme generators and easily-refuted blogs with no links.

In the mid-18th Century the RP became the home of Abolitionists -- which means Liberals. It formed in 1854 out of that group and out of the Whig Party (Lincoln had been one), which believed in Big Government. The Whigs fell apart because they could not reconcile between themselves how they wanted to proceed on slavery, so the new Republican Party took on that faction that wanted Abolition. The Democratic Party at the same time was the conservative home of "states rights" and smaller decentralized government.

Given time, by the end of that century and after several political successes, the RP started taking on the interests of the corporations and the rich, while the DP absorbed a growing populist movement ---- which is how it came to be the choice of, and sympathetic to, immigrants... minorities ... trade unions and the like.

To pretend political parties just sit there in one ideological spot and never budge through time is to expose oneself as eminently ignorant. Politics doesn't work that way and never did.

who are you referring to as rich? Isn't Soro's rich, he ain't no fkn republican. Who the fk are you referring to?

The left fails to mention that the socialist commie candidate Obama had record amount of super pack funding at his disposal during his election campaign.

Completely irrelevant deflection.

 

[jc456]

Perhaps you should tell those responsible for the Merriam-Webster dictionary. It's been around since 1828 and they say YOU are wrong. In other words, M-W considers racial discrimination as racism. Since you say it AA does discriminate, and it does, it's racism. I'll take their word over yours any day.

Definition of RACISM

That last statement is impossible.

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trollling quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

ignore is what one does when one doesn't have an answer. I see you don't. As expected. no, no, no, don't get me wrong, I really didn't expect you to have the balls to answer them. You're a whacked out libturd who can't have a reasonable discussion without going all nutso. KKK was started by democrats. And you can't prove anything otherwise. All the names you provided fought on that side, means they had a belief and a party affiliation. Whether you like it or not I give two shits about. It just makes you a libturd.

 

[Pogo]

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman"

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

What you can't figure out is that you made a claim you were more qualified. Prove it. If you can't provide objective proof of it, it's an opinion as to whether you were more qualified.

Can you provide the contact information of that employer so I can verify your claim?

Fuck no, I don't put personal info on the internet. Fuck you, dishonest gasbag.

 

[Conservative65]

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman"

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

What you can't figure out is that you made a claim you were more qualified. Prove it. If you can't provide objective proof of it, it's an opinion as to whether you were more qualified.

Can you provide the contact information of that employer so I can verify your claim?

Fuck no, I don't put personal info on the internet. Fuck you, dishonest gasbag.

Then, once again, you claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.

I'm not being dishonest. I asked you to prove a claim YOU made and you refused.