You Have Awoken A Sleeping Giant

[jc456]

I am confused about how a topic about Trump has turned into a topic about the Aztecs and Incas.

Let's be clear, in Trump's mind he'd kill both the Spanish and the Aztecs / Incas. White America!

Nothing in your post has anything to do with anything that Trump has ever said.

Try to be less crazy.

Trump 2016! White Power! Dem Hispanics are rapists!

View attachment 68353

HOW DARE YOU! You must listen to the MSM! Listen to me, Trump is his own man! He isn't owned by your liberal, bought news. He says what is right! He says the truth! We need to torture people related to people that we think are bad! Muslims are all terrorists! Why do you think they cover their faces?!?

Trump 2016! White Men unite!

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[JakeStarkey]

Correll continues to ignore that the study does "avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue", and pretends that it is an indictment of AA and indicate of anti-white activity. For shame.

I ignored nothing.

I'm not citing any numbers about the effectiveness of AA, which is what they "avoiding drawing broad conclusions about".

I am citing their research to show the amount of discrimination taking place as part of AA.

I am not pretending that the researchers are indicting AA. '

The 310 point sat bonus for having black skin is happening.

That is my point.

Nothing in your posts have debunked them in any way.

Giving blacks a big bonus for being black in a competition for limited admission slots is indeed "anti-white activity."

Shame on you for being so dishonest about this.

And supporting real racism.

You are repeating yourself. We have been through this. You have fail. The research you posted specifically said that it was not conclusive and to be careful in how to use its findings. Yet you jump in and use the findings without any caution.

What is amazing is you debunk yourself.

I advise all to review the material in the link in my signature. Correll is racist, pushes a white agenda, yet says he is not. Screw that. He is not honest. He is not fair. He is not objective. He is a far right goof who thinks partisan ideology is everything. He has no interest in working with others who do not agree with him.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I R and Correll chatter on like autistic monkeys in their own little worlds.

 

[I amso IR]

With every post, Jake, you take one step forward and two steps backwards.

You sound a bit shrill, I R. And, yes, you are attack my person because you have failed to overthrow my resistance to your one-sided chatter.

Yes, the Spanish were barbarous, engaged in religious and ethnic cleansing and in genocide. And, yes, the burnings at the auto-da-fes were every bit human sacrifices to their God as were the Aztec sacrifices on the altars.

You have fail in extending to the Spanish what you are condemning in the Aztecs.

1. shrill
   [SHril]
   ADJECTIVE
   "a shrill laugh"
2. 
   History[edit]
   The first recorded auto-da-fé was held in Paris in 1242, under Louis IX.[2]
   
   On 1 November 1478, King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella received permission from Pope Sixtus IV to name Inquisitors throughout their domains, to protect Catholicism as the true faith. It originally applied to the Crown of Castile, the domain of Isabella, but in 1483, Ferdinand extended it to his domain of the Crown of Aragon. Ferdinand's action met great resistance, and resulted in the assassination by conversos in 1485 of Pedro de Arbués. In spite of this social discontent it is considered that between 1487 and 1505 the Chapter of Barcelona processed more than 1000 people, of which only 25 were absolved.[3]
   
   The monarchs immediately began establishing permanent trials and developing bureaucracies to carry out investigations in most cities and communities in their empire. The first Iberian auto-da-fé took place in Seville, Spain, in 1481; six of the men and women who participated in this first religious ritual were later executed.[4] Later, Franciscan missionaries brought the Inquisition to the New World.
   
   The exact number of people executed by the Inquisition is not known. Juan Antonio Llorente, the ex-secretary of the Holy Office, gave the following numbers for the Spanish Inquisition excluding the American colonies, Sicily and Sardinia: 31,912 burnt, 17,696 burned in effigy, and 291,450 reconciled de vehementi (required to perform an act of penance).[5] Later in the nineteenth century, José Amador de los Ríos gave even higher numbers, stating that only between the years 1484 and 1525, 28,540 were burned in person, 16,520 burned in effigy and 303,847 penanced.[5] However, after extensive examinations of archival records, modern scholars provide lower estimates, indicating that fewer than 10,000 were actually executed during the whole history of the Spanish Inquisition,[6] perhaps around 3,000.[7]
   
   The Portuguese Inquisition was established in 1536 and lasted officially until 1821. Its influence was much weakened by the late 18th century under the government of the Marquês of Pombal. They were also held in the Portuguese colony of Goa, India, following the establishment of the Inquisition there in 1562–1563.
   
   Autos-da-fé also took place in Mexico, Brazil, and Peru.[8] Contemporary historians of the Conquistadors, such as Bernal Díaz del Castillo, recorded them. Although records are incomplete, one historian estimates that about 50 people were executed by the Mexican Inquisition.[9]

I am neither shrill or unreasoned. I am attacking no one, especially you, tho I am disgusted with the rebuke heaped upon the Spanish by those who are willing to forgive a civilization for it's brutality towards that civilization. Is forgiveness a good thing, absolutely, but not at the expense of denying the truth. And that is the core of the matter. The Spanish this and the Spanish that, are certainly factors to be considered. But at the exclusion of the atrocities committed by the original contributors, no way.

I am not interested in winning or losing anything, quite to the contrary I refuse to heap a massive injustice on factor (a) to the exclusion of factor (b). The persecution by all involved was in my estimation, wrong. But to imply that a savage population should be forgiven while a enlightened civilization must be rebuked is a false implication. We, you and I were not there and your esteemed scholars were also not there to see first hand what transpired. I was not with Cortez when he did what he did and was was not on the steps of a rock cathedral when a priest, a trusted member of that society murdered, plain and simple, innocent living beings, displayed their pumping hearts to all present, rolled their bodies and brains, not yet unconsious, down a row of many stairs. History states some were zealots who volunteered, and I say good for them. But for the captured prisoners of distant tribes, that is a show of lousey brotherly love. And yes, one could construe that the acts of burning at the stake, autos-de-fe, in the same light as were the heart removal and decapitations of the native.. The fact that you cannot show or allow for the same relationship of those events is very telling. Am I to assume you have a thing about the Catholic and Christianity? If that is the case, then discussing the matter is a total waste of time as your personal preordained falsehoods invalidate such a thought.

And finally and again, I have no wish to "overthrow" the simplistic and false logic you present. I find it ironic that you are capable of such misguided and ironic thought. And yes, "the Spanish indeed" not to mention the Portugal. I find your logic very Progressive in nature. And that is being kind. If you wish to continue this tit for tat, I suggest we move to the history forum as this has little application in the election forum. I shall be looking for your response there. Don't disappoint!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you keep digging yourself in deeper.

I R, you are not helping yourself in the slightest, but one can always hope.

 

[I amso IR]

Yes, you keep digging yourself in deeper.

I R, you are not helping yourself in the slightest, but one can always hope.

I am doing very well thank you History forum Jake, "What is history good for"?

 

[Correll]

Correll continues to ignore that the study does "avoid broad conclusions over whether affirmative action is working or should continue", and pretends that it is an indictment of AA and indicate of anti-white activity. For shame.

I ignored nothing.

I'm not citing any numbers about the effectiveness of AA, which is what they "avoiding drawing broad conclusions about".

I am citing their research to show the amount of discrimination taking place as part of AA.

I am not pretending that the researchers are indicting AA. '

The 310 point sat bonus for having black skin is happening.

That is my point.

Nothing in your posts have debunked them in any way.

Giving blacks a big bonus for being black in a competition for limited admission slots is indeed "anti-white activity."

Shame on you for being so dishonest about this.

And supporting real racism.

You are repeating yourself. We have been through this. You have fail. The research you posted specifically said that it was not conclusive and to be careful in how to use its findings. Yet you jump in and use the findings without any caution.

What is amazing is you debunk yourself.

I advise all to review the material in the link in my signature. Correll is racist, pushes a white agenda, yet says he is not. Screw that. He is not honest. He is not fair. He is not objective. He is a far right goof who thinks partisan ideology is everything. He has no interest in working with others who do not agree with him.

The study specifically avoided drawing conclusions about whether AA was working.

That is not the same as being "inconclusive". That is the researchers trying to avoid being drawn into a vicious political debate.

The study did not say to be careful in how to use it's finding.

One of the researchers after the fact, in an interview said that some people were using it to support views that the researcher did not support.

BUT he did not refute his own data, nor admit to any flaw in his findings.


One of his findings was that blacks get a 300 points SAT bonus for having black skin in Ivy League admissions.

I cited this to point out the AA, Multiculturalism, Diversity, ect, lead to anti-white discrimination.

That was my point.

And I supported it with a scientifically researched academic study.

You have since instead of honestly addressing that fact, have been dishonestly attacking me.

The point of peer review is that the entire science community is supposedly trying to find flaws in his study, and if any are found, would publish a counter study showing those flaws.

You should, at this point, try to find any such peer review.

SO we could see what if any flaws or mistakes have been found in his research.


YOu are the one who is not honest or fair.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you think "not drawing conclusions" is not "inconclusive", then you are a person who does not go by traditional definitions.

You are simply a cheat and a racist.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

White people!

Go Trump

You mean awaken the weak midgets aka white supremacists.

Otherwise known as redneck white trash. All across America the trailer parks are alive with the sound of Drumpf's Nazi spew.

 

[Tank]

Rather be a Redneck, then a blackneck muslim

 

[Correll]

If you think "not drawing conclusions" is not "inconclusive", then you are a person who does not go by traditional definitions.

You are simply a cheat and a racist.

"Avoiding drawing conclusions" is NOT THE SAME as "inconclusive".

I could point out that you always act like an asshole, but "avoid concluding" that you ARE an asshole.

But the obvious "conclusion" anyone not a fool would "conclude" is that someone who acts like an asshole ALL THE TIME, is indeed an asshole.

And if I were to try to wiggle out of that, that would be me being a lying coward.


And the conclusion he was referring to was whether AA was working.

That is not the topic here.

I was only citing his data on the 300 point sat bonus black students get for having black skin.

As proof that AA, ECT, leads to anti-white discrimination.

Do you deny that blacks get a 300 point bonus in Ivy League Admission, you dishonest asshole?

DO you deny that that is anti-white discrimination, you dishonest asshole?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you never get "just once more" with me when you have been competently rebuked.

I simply don't tolerate autistic chatter monkeys like Yurt and you and a few others.

You are wrong. Sux to be you.

 

[Correll]

No, you never get "just once more" with me when you have been competently rebuked.

I simply don't tolerate autistic chatter monkeys like Yurt and you and a few others.

You are wrong. Sux to be you.

Saying you rebuked some one is not the same as ACTUALLY rebuking someone.

No matter how many times you say it.

My point stands.

Blacks get a 300 SAT point bonus in Ivy League admission.

THis is anti-white discrimination caused by AA and ect.

The factors that lead to that discrimination are universal in our society.

The difference with University admissions is not that the motive to discriminate in stronger, but that the documentation makes the scale of the discrimination easier to see.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, of course it is that your arguments are competently rebutted.

You have no point at all. You twisted a study's results under false pretenses.

You do know that all the Ivy League schools are privately owned institutions?

 

[Correll]

Yes, of course it is that your arguments are competently rebutted.

You have no point at all. You twisted a study's results under false pretenses.

You do know that all the Ivy League schools are privately owned institutions?

How is it relevant that the Ivy League schools are privately owned?

And no, my point about blacks getting a 300 point sat bonus for having black skin as proof of anti-white discrimination has NOT been rebutted.

I did not address the Studies conclusion at all, merely referenced their collected data.

You are a liar.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it has, and you saying differently means nothing, Correll.

Are you saying a private institution of higher education can't manage their admissions as they wish.

You must be a socialist.

 

[Faun]

No, you never get "just once more" with me when you have been competently rebuked.

I simply don't tolerate autistic chatter monkeys like Yurt and you and a few others.

You are wrong. Sux to be you.

Saying you rebuked some one is not the same as ACTUALLY rebuking someone.

No matter how many times you say it.

My point stands.

Blacks get a 300 SAT point bonus in Ivy League admission.

THis is anti-white discrimination caused by AA and ect.

The factors that lead to that discrimination are universal in our society.

The difference with University admissions is not that the motive to discriminate in stronger, but that the documentation makes the scale of the discrimination easier to see.

I see you share the same beef as David Duke, who ran on the platform of affirmative action was discrimination against whites.

 

[Correll]

Of course it has, and you saying differently means nothing, Correll.

Are you saying a private institution of higher education can't manage their admissions as they wish.

You must be a socialist.

Of course it has not.

And you saying differently means nothing.

I have repeatedly explained my use of the data in that study, and you have never honestly or seriously addressed that. You have lied by misrepresenting what I AND the studies author(s) said.

No, I did not say that a private institution can't manage their admissions as they wish. I am stating that there is anti-white discrimination in the way they manage their admission.

Do you ever plan to be honest about anything?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course it has, and you saying differently means nothing, Correll.

Are you saying a private institution of higher education can't manage their admissions as they wish.

You must be a socialist.

Of course it has not. And you saying differently means nothing. I have repeatedly explained my use of the data in that study, and you have never honestly or seriously addressed that. You have lied by misrepresenting what I AND the studies author(s) said. No, I did not say that a private institution can't manage their admissions as they wish. I am stating that there is anti-white discrimination in the way they manage their admission. Do you ever plan to be honest about anything?

I have clearly exposed your lying manipulation of the study. Now you act like a socialist because it makes you "feels" good to keep lying. You use the Ivy League as an example, which is stupid because it is private and can have any admissions they decide. If you don't like it, don't apply there. You need to start acting like an adult.

 

[Correll]

Of course it has, and you saying differently means nothing, Correll.

Are you saying a private institution of higher education can't manage their admissions as they wish.

You must be a socialist.

Of course it has not. And you saying differently means nothing. I have repeatedly explained my use of the data in that study, and you have never honestly or seriously addressed that. You have lied by misrepresenting what I AND the studies author(s) said. No, I did not say that a private institution can't manage their admissions as they wish. I am stating that there is anti-white discrimination in the way they manage their admission. Do you ever plan to be honest about anything?

I have clearly exposed your lying manipulation of the study. Now you act like a socialist because it makes you "feels" good to keep lying. You use the Ivy League as an example, which is stupid because it is private and can have any admissions they decide. If you don't like it, don't apply there. You need to start acting like an adult.

Private like a baker? They are just as vulnerable to AA, multiculturalism, diversity, ect as the rest of American society.

YOur pretense that they are not is a lie.

I have presented evidence that the result of the motivation, is a 300 point SAT bonus for Black Skin, as one limited example.

As discrimination in FAVOR of blacks for a limited resource, ie admission slots, equals discrimination AGAINST whites for that resource, my claim that serious anti-white discrimination exists is proven.

Your weak attempts to misrepresent either what I have said about the study (misusing conclusions) or what the author of the study has said (not agreeing with use of findings)

does NOT in any way debunk my point.