- Oct 7, 2011
- 38,401
- 4,162
- 1,130
White Christian Male gotzta go yo!!!
Sums up Hussein's entire tenure. He's an asshole. Nuff said.
Sums up Hussein's entire tenure. He's an asshole. Nuff said.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusLol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?Americans did not force blacks into slavery.
Reggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
When the left wing patronizing racist argument loses, rely on the puppet strings.Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusLol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?Americans did not force blacks into slavery.
Reggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusLol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?
Reggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.
Holy shitWrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusLol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?
Reggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.
You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?
Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusLol, what native black tribesmen were captured and forced into slavery in the US, idiot?
Reggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.
You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?
He still thinks white men trapped and kidnapped blacks to be slaves. Yes, he thinks he is smart.Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusReggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.
You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?
Wow. Look, a lib defending his strawman with dishonest word games.
How shocking fresh and orignialz[pao9eij
Oh, sorry, fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard.
Wrong because there were no native black tribes in the US, doofusReggie
And that means slavery was voluntary, right?
You sure do love your strawmen, don't ya.
You said it wasnt by force. If it wasnt by force it mustve been voluntary, right?
Wow. Look, a lib defending his strawman with dishonest word games.
How shocking fresh and orignialz[pao9eij
Oh, sorry, fell asleep and my head hit the keyboard.
Nonsense.
No one every gave me anything for being white and/or male.
Thanks for dismissing all my hard work and a lifetime of accomplishments and risk taking.
That professor you mentioned certainly chose the first answer and fell into its trap: when you make claims like that, scientific or not, you hurt a group of people so badly that the society cannot tolerate it. Consequently, the professor was punished although he may be telling the truth. At that point, the negative influence outweighs his personal freedom of research and speech. Had he expected that, he probably would have switched to another research topic, because the society is not ready to digest something like that. Sometimes, it is advisable to take the consequences of such actions into consideration before exercising our freedom.My problem is that both questions present a narrative which doesn't exist. One extremely respected scientist said that white people have higher IQs on average than blacks, and he was destroyed for it despite all the years of DNA breakthroughs he contributed to. On the other hand you have lunatics like Francis Cress Welsing being allowed to work with children for many years despite writing a book that is the black equivalent of the movie "Birth of a Nation" called "The Isis Papers".These two cases were actually presented to us in a high school class several years ago. I thought they were quite interesting.I would be fine with calling blacks stupid today based on their current culture and mindset, but at the same time I think all white teenagers and the 20 somethings who grew up on MTV are idiots for the same reason. I also think the "tend" helps soften the message enough for my taste in regards to talking about blacks committing crimes.I think everybody has a line defining racism in their mind. If you don't cross that line, nobody blame you as a racist.I doubt it.Oh maybe I didn't make it very clear, but if you look at my post, I was saying that they became "susceptible to racism". The indication is that if similar incidence occurs frequently, they may really believe the blacks are born with "violence gene" or stupid stuff like that. Of course I was not accusing my friends of being racist...
I have been a "racist" according to the SPLC for nearly a decade now ever since joining Stormfront in 2008, but the only people I have ever made the case for inherent inferiority are the white liberal sellouts who insist that Susan Sontag was right, even after being gang raped and beaten by the black and brown racists whom they claim don't exist. Without white guilt lunatics racial relations would be a lot better.
I'm curious about where you draw that line. Let's say: if someone frequently claims that, for example, "the blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime", would you say that he is a racist?
Also, if a professor claims that he has found through scientific research that the whites are "genetically smarter" than the blacks, would you mark the professor as a racist?
If a professor claimed whites were smarter inherently I would obviously need to see this research and study up on the science behind it before I believed it or not. I certainly wouldn't just dismiss the professor outright as a racist.
You might notice that the claims have different level of factual support.
One of them has partial support (i.e. SOME blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime), and the other has, hypothetically, full scientific support. The question is, however, does it matter how much support they have? One answer is: based on solid factual support, any comment is not racism and should be allowed, because people have the freedom of speaking the truth (and take actions accordingly). Another opinion is that even with factual support, such comment shouldn't be allowed because it hurts the feelings of others and lead to hatred and mistrust. Apparently, you tend to choose the first answer while many people from the left believe in the second. Naturally, you guys draw that line at different places to strengthen your preferred answer. Nevertheless, what really matters is to understand the implication of these answers - they both have traps and rewards waiting for their believers. After all, the argument on the definition of racism is essentially an argument on how we should behave.
Just some thoughts...
There isn't really an honest debate on the morality of racism and racialism, it is all about beating white people down every time they stop displaying the typical symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.
What do you call someone who looks at all the hard work you have done in your life, and all you have accomplished and dismisses it?
Nonsense.
No one every gave me anything for being white and/or male.
Thanks for dismissing all my hard work and a lifetime of accomplishments and risk taking.
Well, first, I don't know you've ever accomplished anything. ...
What do you call someone who looks at all the hard work you have done in your life, and all you have accomplished and dismisses it?
Sensible. A lot of people work hard. Not all of them get the big hand up they get for being white and male in this society.
Reminds me of Trump saying he got a small loan of a million dollars. He's in such a bubble that a cool million is considered a little help.
The world will never be "ready" for something like that. This world has been make-believe for a long time and it will only get more outlandish from here on in.That professor you mentioned certainly chose the first answer and fell into its trap: when you make claims like that, scientific or not, you hurt a group of people so badly that the society cannot tolerate it. Consequently, the professor was punished although he may be telling the truth. At that point, the negative influence outweighs his personal freedom of research and speech. Had he expected that, he probably would have switched to another research topic, because the society is not ready to digest something like that. Sometimes, it is advisable to take the consequences of such actions into consideration before exercising our freedom.My problem is that both questions present a narrative which doesn't exist. One extremely respected scientist said that white people have higher IQs on average than blacks, and he was destroyed for it despite all the years of DNA breakthroughs he contributed to. On the other hand you have lunatics like Francis Cress Welsing being allowed to work with children for many years despite writing a book that is the black equivalent of the movie "Birth of a Nation" called "The Isis Papers".These two cases were actually presented to us in a high school class several years ago. I thought they were quite interesting.I would be fine with calling blacks stupid today based on their current culture and mindset, but at the same time I think all white teenagers and the 20 somethings who grew up on MTV are idiots for the same reason. I also think the "tend" helps soften the message enough for my taste in regards to talking about blacks committing crimes.I think everybody has a line defining racism in their mind. If you don't cross that line, nobody blame you as a racist.I doubt it.
I have been a "racist" according to the SPLC for nearly a decade now ever since joining Stormfront in 2008, but the only people I have ever made the case for inherent inferiority are the white liberal sellouts who insist that Susan Sontag was right, even after being gang raped and beaten by the black and brown racists whom they claim don't exist. Without white guilt lunatics racial relations would be a lot better.
I'm curious about where you draw that line. Let's say: if someone frequently claims that, for example, "the blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime", would you say that he is a racist?
Also, if a professor claims that he has found through scientific research that the whites are "genetically smarter" than the blacks, would you mark the professor as a racist?
If a professor claimed whites were smarter inherently I would obviously need to see this research and study up on the science behind it before I believed it or not. I certainly wouldn't just dismiss the professor outright as a racist.
You might notice that the claims have different level of factual support.
One of them has partial support (i.e. SOME blacks are stupid and tend to commit crime), and the other has, hypothetically, full scientific support. The question is, however, does it matter how much support they have? One answer is: based on solid factual support, any comment is not racism and should be allowed, because people have the freedom of speaking the truth (and take actions accordingly). Another opinion is that even with factual support, such comment shouldn't be allowed because it hurts the feelings of others and lead to hatred and mistrust. Apparently, you tend to choose the first answer while many people from the left believe in the second. Naturally, you guys draw that line at different places to strengthen your preferred answer. Nevertheless, what really matters is to understand the implication of these answers - they both have traps and rewards waiting for their believers. After all, the argument on the definition of racism is essentially an argument on how we should behave.
Just some thoughts...
There isn't really an honest debate on the morality of racism and racialism, it is all about beating white people down every time they stop displaying the typical symptoms of Stockholm Syndrome.
He is a billionaire, it is chump change to him.Reminds me of Trump saying he got a small loan of a million dollars. He's in such a bubble that a cool million is considered a little help.
The biggest bunch of self-loathing leftist bullshit that I have seen in quite some time. It doesn't surprise me that Henrico county would stoop this low.
13% of our population commits nearly 70% of all our crime and nearly 80% of all violent crime. Blacks kill over 93% of other blacks. Cops kill less than 1% of blacks and this is often while being attacked and threatened while arresting. It's astonishing the number is not higher. Cops kill more whites than blacks. Blacks breeze into competitive programs and jobs simply because of the color of their skin (look at Med School, Law School, Business School (and now all STEM programs) statistics regarding applying/acceptance based in grades). If your REALLY informed, you don't have "white guilt".
The left will not stop folks. They simply will not stop. BTW, just in case you needed another reason to despise left wingers more today than you did yesterday.
Not surprising a racist piece of shit doesn't get it.
It's not about guilt. It's about calling out bigotry.
Go back to Stormfront Troll.
You clearly inferred things that I have never said and attributed them to me in order to advance your argument.So here is the part where instead of saying "WOW" you actually list what I said and why its dishonest. You have a serious problem with that everytime I ask.Wow, so in your mind, you perceive the following as "fact":I told you why in that same post.
The rest of your post is nothing more than dishonest straw men, which is precisely what I expect from you.
.
Not one thing I said was dishonest but I expect that response everytime from you. It's your "thing" but instead you just rabble and pretend to be offended. Acting class.
Next your going to claim that me asking you what I lied about has "ruffled the PC police"
Thats called sarcasm. Slavery itself is a bad thing and you think by calling it PC it should be changed into something good. For your feelings
- "It's the PC police fault that slavery is considered a bad thing".
- "If only slavery and oppression was seen as a good thing...by golly then everything changes. Whites history would be good! White people would not feel guilty and everything would be awesome!"
- "All we have to do is fight the PC police's characterization that slavery was a bad thing. Once thats changed whites wouldnt feel guilty anymore and everything would be grand"
Those are your words, blatantly misrepresenting mine via straw man arguments. They're right there, on the freaking screen.
So instead of the rabble state what I said that was dishonest. Because if you consider sarcasm to be lies then you're exposed. If you pretend that what I said was true, you're exposed.
You don't even realize how dishonest you are.That's how badly your thought processes have been distorted by your partisan ideology.
This is why you people are such a fascinating study. You literally can't tell truth from fiction. And you keep proving it for me.
.
Once again, you spend 90% of the time going "OMG OMG OMG LIAR" and the other 10% emoting. I asked you what I lied about and you said I presented a straw man. But by golly MAC where is the LIE? Where is the dishonesty? Are you claiming that I KNOW what you are thinking and therefore I should present the TRUTH?
Or will you just go "I CANT BELIEVE THE LIES" and slink back under your rock?
That's known as a "straw man", it's dishonest, it's a lie.
That's what hardcore partisan ideologues do, and it's why they/you have zero (0) credibility.
Dance around it all you want. It's what you do.
.
What you think I inferred and what is the truth are 2 different things. Once again, when pressed on the rationale behind your constant name calling all you can muster is suggestions of what you thought someone meant.
Just like Ray from Cleveland. You dont care about what the video says you only know that your precious feelings were hurt and think that being angry means something significant