Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

[Humorme]

Molly doesn't seem to understand why she's been called a racist. In her mind she's has never made a racist commemt.

.]
You would think using the "N" word amongst themselves would be nothing but a reason to incite anger with white people, why use a word you hate to be called by white people, unless it is to start shit?

These ae just 2..
.

You call people racists (as I've pointed out before.) You just dance around the subject and let others hint at it while you second their sentiment. You're part of that group people call the KIan with a tan.

There is no klan with a tan. What you define as racism is not racism.

Prejudice, bigotry, intolerance - call it what you like. Wrong is wrong.

The attitude that I have to agree with views such as yours in order to express an opinion may not be your definition of racism, but no matter what you'd like to call it, it is wrong.

 

[Humorme]

Why do you think I'm here? And it's not to 'make a religion out of race'.

The reason you keep getting the push back that you do is because you all for some reason are unable to 'hear' what we have been stating. This has never been a competition of who has suffered more or that whites haven't suffered too in various ways. It's not about individuals, it's about the white and black races as a whole. If we can't answer the basic question we're never going to get to the actual race relation issues, but I've begun suspecting that the other side is only here to do damage, not work on improving race relations.

Admit or Deny:
The white race considered themselves to be superior to the black race

Admit or Deny:
There exists historical documents in which white racists verbalize their belief of racial superiority and the inferiority of the black race

Admit or Deny:
There exists a Supreme Court ruling in which the justice stated that the black man has no rights which a white man need respect

Admit or Deny:
There existed specific laws for the purpose of limiting or restricting the rights of people of African descent, also known as Jim Crow laws or Black Codes

Admit or Deny:
There exists legislative, court or other history documents in which the black race has declared their belief in racial superiority over the white race

Admit or Deny:
There exists specific laws for the purpose of limiting or restricting the rights of white Americans while granting additional rights to blacks

Admit or Deny:
There exists a Supreme Court Ruling in which a justice rules that the white man is so far below the black man that he has no rights of which need be respected

and so on and so forth.

These are historical, in the past

Yes and they are historically irrelevant... considering the fact that blacks started the slave trade and we are not talking about holding them accountable.

Oddly, black people don't care about the racist countries of the world with North Korea at 98 + percent one people, China is 98 + percent Han Chinese, Japanese (which calls itself the most racist nation on earth with about 97 percent or so Japanese. No way. How about Zimbabwe with 99.7 percent black?

The black extremists make much ado about Freedom, but in reality they hate the concept. They've made that clear to me.

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

I've projected nothing..

.You've been in the conversation. So what's your point? .
.
You didn't come here exchange ideas, you came here telling me I how you were going to stand up to me because I bully whites. So you put on supermans cape and proceeded to spit into the wind. You need to understand there has not been on case taken to supreme court by blacks that challenges equal rights for whites. No black person would get a case heard in kangaroo court, much less the supreme court claiming racial discrimination when 84 out of 100 slots are reserved for blacks. Every 20 or so years the right of whites to vote doesn't get voted on by congress.

For some reason whites like yourself think being called a name is equal to us losing some of our rights and chances at equal opportunity. You exercised your first amendment rights pal, but your ideas were opposed. We have that right under the first amendment. You and the other white republicans here are the extremists trying to shut people down. .
.
..

I have not exercised those First Amendment Rights; however, we can remedy that situation today. I will speak directly to the whites here and end this back forth once and for all. How about that?

 

[Humorme]

Why do you think I'm here? And it's not to 'make a religion out of race'.

The reason you keep getting the push back that you do is because you all for some reason are unable to 'hear' what we have been stating. This has never been a competition of who has suffered more or that whites haven't suffered too in various ways. It's not about individuals, it's about the white and black races as a whole. If we can't answer the basic question we're never going to get to the actual race relation issues, but I've begun suspecting that the other side is only here to do damage, not work on improving race relations.

Admit or Deny:
The white race considered themselves to be superior to the black race

Admit or Deny:
There exists historical documents in which white racists verbalize their belief of racial superiority and the inferiority of the black race

Admit or Deny:
There exists a Supreme Court ruling in which the justice stated that the black man has no rights which a white man need respect

Admit or Deny:
There existed specific laws for the purpose of limiting or restricting the rights of people of African descent, also known as Jim Crow laws or Black Codes

Admit or Deny:
There exists legislative, court or other history documents in which the black race has declared their belief in racial superiority over the white race

Admit or Deny:
There exists specific laws for the purpose of limiting or restricting the rights of white Americans while granting additional rights to blacks

Admit or Deny:
There exists a Supreme Court Ruling in which a justice rules that the white man is so far below the black man that he has no rights of which need be respected

and so on and so forth.

These are historical, in the past

Yes and they are historically irrelevant... considering the fact that blacks started the slave trade and we are not talking about holding them accountable.

Oddly, black people don't care about the racist countries of the world with North Korea at 98 + percent one people, China is 98 + percent Han Chinese, Japanese (which calls itself the most racist nation on earth with about 97 percent or so Japanese. No way. How about Zimbabwe with 99.7 percent black?

The black extremists make much ado about Freedom, but in reality they hate the concept. They've made that clear to me.

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

Why does anyone have to "disavow" someone else in order to permit you to have what you call "civil dialogue"?

Are you not capable of judging individuals based in their own actions towards YOU?

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

 

[Humorme]

Depending on how one interprets history
There is nothing for me to "lose" here. It's an anonymous forum, frequented by a majority of people like YOU that I am elated to NOT KNOW personally.

Sure there is. You made an argument that your friend was justified in calling me a vile insult for no reason.


You lost that argument. You lose.


That this is an anonymous forum, doesn't change that. That it won't change your life, doesn't change that.


Nothing about my statement implies real significant harm to you.


Yet, you took a stupid stance, and you lost.

In a few cases, there are some here who make sense.

Your warped perception of what is "vile" versus what is not, in a setting like this is childish and resembles the logic of a 10 year old, who failed the 5th grade.

In our society, "racist" is a very serious insult. Careers, lives are ruined by being labeled as such, whether the accusation is true or not.


To deny that it is a vile insult, is absurd.

It is an indisputable fact that in a forum called "Race Relations" even the most benign and innocuous individual will at some point in time be referred to as a "Racist".

Only because assholes like to call people names. Nothing I have said in this thread justifies calling me such a name, and I have demonstrated that, by challenging your friend to back it up, and her utter failure to do so.

You are quick on the trigger to accuse others of "race baiting" and in turn have no moral compass regarding some of what you have stated.

I am quick to call people on race baiting. It is a real problem in our society, and assholes who do it, need to be called on their shit.


My morals are fine.

And when you do get called out, you throw a whiny ***** tantrum.

ANd that's just an ass trying to minimizing my proper response to asses being asses.


Your lie is rejected.

If you can't understand that, and accept that by visiting this forum you WILL be subject to what everyone else here experiences, you're a damn fool.

I'm well aware that the world if full of lefty race baiting assholes, and I enjoy that on this site I get to call them on their bullshit.

You are not unique or above anyone else who posts here.

My arguments stand on their own merits or don't. That you feel a need to attack me personally, shows that my arguments are such that you cannot refute them.

But you appear to believe that you are.

Nope. Nothing I have said supports that stupid claim.

That makes you delusional.

Said the man that thinks that not answering a question is reason to call someone racist.

I get called racist. Nowhere have I even hinted that I am, because I am not.

Ive been called the same, but Ive never implied that any race is superior to another.

Do you support discrimination based on race? Do you think that blacks have a right to judge whites and decide if something they said is a micro agression?

I do not support discrimination of any kind, but no race of people has a monopoly on doing so.

People are judged here everyday, based on what they take personally. What I see as a "micro agression may differ from someone elses perception.

Speaking for myself, I refuse to give someone on an anonymous message board that kind of power over me.

Face to face in real time will get a much different reaction.

We finally agree on something. Too many people call each other names and question the other guy's motives when they won't do it in public. That back and forth is what keeps people from having an honest discussion. Today, I will attempt to try and say what nobody else will say. Neither side is going to like it, but it is what it is.

I don't think that the black extremists are going to read it all, but maybe the whites will and then they might approach you differently.

 

[Humorme]

Why do you think I'm here? And it's not to 'make a religion out of race'.

The reason you keep getting the push back that you do is because you all for some reason are unable to 'hear' what we have been stating. This has never been a competition of who has suffered more or that whites haven't suffered too in various ways. It's not about individuals, it's about the white and black races as a whole. If we can't answer the basic question we're never going to get to the actual race relation issues, but I've begun suspecting that the other side is only here to do damage, not work on improving race relations.

Admit or Deny:
The white race considered themselves to be superior to the black race

Admit or Deny:
There exists historical documents in which white racists verbalize their belief of racial superiority and the inferiority of the black race

Admit or Deny:
There exists a Supreme Court ruling in which the justice stated that the black man has no rights which a white man need respect

Admit or Deny:
There existed specific laws for the purpose of limiting or restricting the rights of people of African descent, also known as Jim Crow laws or Black Codes

Admit or Deny:
There exists legislative, court or other history documents in which the black race has declared their belief in racial superiority over the white race

Admit or Deny:
There exists specific laws for the purpose of limiting or restricting the rights of white Americans while granting additional rights to blacks

Admit or Deny:
There exists a Supreme Court Ruling in which a justice rules that the white man is so far below the black man that he has no rights of which need be respected

and so on and so forth.

These are historical, in the past

Yes and they are historically irrelevant... considering the fact that blacks started the slave trade and we are not talking about holding them accountable.

Oddly, black people don't care about the racist countries of the world with North Korea at 98 + percent one people, China is 98 + percent Han Chinese, Japanese (which calls itself the most racist nation on earth with about 97 percent or so Japanese. No way. How about Zimbabwe with 99.7 percent black?

The black extremists make much ado about Freedom, but in reality they hate the concept. They've made that clear to me.

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

I've projected nothing..

.You've been in the conversation. So what's your point? .
.
You didn't come here exchange ideas, you came here telling me I how you were going to stand up to me because I bully whites. So you put on supermans cape and proceeded to spit into the wind. You need to understand there has not been on case taken to supreme court by blacks that challenges equal rights for whites. No black person would get a case heard in kangaroo court, much less the supreme court claiming racial discrimination when 84 out of 100 slots are reserved for blacks. Every 20 or so years the right of whites to vote doesn't get voted on by congress.

For some reason whites like yourself think being called a name is equal to us losing some of our rights and chances at equal opportunity. You exercised your first amendment rights pal, but your ideas were opposed. We have that right under the first amendment. You and the other white republicans here are the extremists trying to shut people down. .
.
..

Since I never proposed an idea, it is obvious that IM2 is, once again, talking out his ass. I'm beyond the personality contest. Let's say what hasn't been said:

There are black extremists and there are white extremists. The ones in between do not speak out. This thread could have been done as a poll and what I'm going to say might not have become necessary. So, this is the first of a couple of posts. THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

When my forefathers left the tyranny of King George, they came to the United States seeking Liberty. The FIRST governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact. It opens as follows:

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith,..."

Those colonists saw themselves as the Israelites of the Bible and they sought to build a homeland - a New Jerusalem. As a matter of fact, up until the time that Ronald Reagan was president, it was common to have presidents and other politicians give a speech invoking John Winthrop's famous sermon about a "shining city on a hill." Obama made a vague reference to it. According to Wikipedia Mitt Romney refrenced that sermon:

"In 2016, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney incorporated the idiom into a condemnation of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign:

His domestic policies would lead to recession; his foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president, and his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill."

City upon a Hill - Wikipedia

This shining city on a hill reference is about Matthew 5 : 14 which reads:

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden."

Although the entire world probably knows that America is the New Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible (see Zechariah chapter 2 - especially verse 12 and then check out Matthew 23: 37 - 39) NONE will admit it. It's simply not in vogue to admit the root of the race issue. But I digress.

What does this have to with the race issue? Everything. I'll continue on a little later when I have a few minutes.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

Since I never proposed an idea, it is obvious that IM2 is, once again, talking out his ass. I'm beyond the personality contest. Let's say what hasn't been said:

There are black extremists and there are white extremists. The ones in between do not speak out. This thread could have been done as a poll and what I'm going to say might not have become necessary. So, this is the first of a couple of posts. THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

When my forefathers left the tyranny of King George, they came to the United States seeking Liberty. The FIRST governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact. It opens as follows:

"IN THE NAME OF GOD, AMEN. We, whose names are underwritten, the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c. Having undertaken for the Glory of God, and Advancement of the Christian Faith,..."

Those colonists saw themselves as the Israelites of the Bible and they sought to build a homeland - a New Jerusalem. As a matter of fact, up until the time that Ronald Reagan was president, it was common to have presidents and other politicians give a speech invoking John Winthrop's famous sermon about a "shining city on a hill." Obama made a vague reference to it. According to Wikipedia Mitt Romney refrenced that sermon:

"In 2016, 2012 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney incorporated the idiom into a condemnation of Donald Trump's 2016 presidential campaign:

His domestic policies would lead to recession; his foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president, and his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill."

City upon a Hill - Wikipedia

This shining city on a hill reference is about Matthew 5 : 14 which reads:

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden."

Although the entire world probably knows that America is the New Jerusalem mentioned in the Bible (see Zechariah chapter 2 - especially verse 12 and then check out Matthew 23: 37 - 39) NONE will admit it. It's simply not in vogue to admit the root of the race issue. But I digress.

What does this have to with the race issue? Everything. I'll continue on a little later when I have a few minutes.

Christian Identity BS ^^^^

Christian Identity - Wikipedia

 

[katsteve2012]

These are historical, in the past

Yes and they are historically irrelevant... considering the fact that blacks started the slave trade and we are not talking about holding them accountable.

Oddly, black people don't care about the racist countries of the world with North Korea at 98 + percent one people, China is 98 + percent Han Chinese, Japanese (which calls itself the most racist nation on earth with about 97 percent or so Japanese. No way. How about Zimbabwe with 99.7 percent black?

The black extremists make much ado about Freedom, but in reality they hate the concept. They've made that clear to me.

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

Why does anyone have to "disavow" someone else in order to permit you to have what you call "civil dialogue"?

Are you not capable of judging individuals based in their own actions towards YOU?

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

You are not "required" to do anything. No one here is.

 

[Humorme]

Yes and they are historically irrelevant... considering the fact that blacks started the slave trade and we are not talking about holding them accountable.

Oddly, black people don't care about the racist countries of the world with North Korea at 98 + percent one people, China is 98 + percent Han Chinese, Japanese (which calls itself the most racist nation on earth with about 97 percent or so Japanese. No way. How about Zimbabwe with 99.7 percent black?

The black extremists make much ado about Freedom, but in reality they hate the concept. They've made that clear to me.

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

Why does anyone have to "disavow" someone else in order to permit you to have what you call "civil dialogue"?

Are you not capable of judging individuals based in their own actions towards YOU?

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

You are not "required" to do anything. No one here is.

So, here is part 2 of what I had to say. We will soon see if all of it makes the cut... no more judging me without reading the applicable posts.

THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2

When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. Virtually every early state constitution had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.

We see our Christian culture in even the smallest details: like twelve jurors on a jury and a judge - in commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper. I could do an entire book about the Christian references in our nation's symbols.

Be that as it may, a lot of people know what the real fight is about. Back in the 1980s PBS ran a documentary called "Eyes on the Prize." From a racial perspective, we all know what that "prize" is. The prize is the control over that piece of real estate coveted by the rest of the world.

The extremists who created the race issue did so keep us focused on social issues so that the money powers could get control over America. The money powers infiltrated our political and legal institutions. And they created chaos. For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.

Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)

Then there was this in the Constitution:

"Article I, Section. 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Conservatives have a novel way of explaining why this was put into the Constitution and I don't agree with their explanation, but include a link before moving forward:

3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?

I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:

The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality.

 

[katsteve2012]

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

Why does anyone have to "disavow" someone else in order to permit you to have what you call "civil dialogue"?

Are you not capable of judging individuals based in their own actions towards YOU?

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

You are not "required" to do anything. No one here is.

So, here is part 2 of what I had to say. We will soon see if all of it makes the cut... no more judging me without reading the applicable posts.

THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2

When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. Virtually every early state constitution had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.

We see our Christian culture in even the smallest details: like twelve jurors on a jury and a judge - in commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper. I could do an entire book about the Christian references in our nation's symbols.

Be that as it may, a lot of people know what the real fight is about. Back in the 1980s PBS ran a documentary called "Eyes on the Prize." From a racial perspective, we all know what that "prize" is. The prize is the control over that piece of real estate coveted by the rest of the world.

The extremists who created the race issue did so keep us focused on social issues so that the money powers could get control over America. The money powers infiltrated our political and legal institutions. And they created chaos. For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.

Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)

Then there was this in the Constitution:

"Article I, Section. 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Conservatives have a novel way of explaining why this was put into the Constitution and I don't agree with their explanation, but include a link before moving forward:

3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?

I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:

The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality.

I thoroughly understand that. You still see those "ideals" played out to this day. In statements like "Make America great again" and "We want our country back".

Those are thinly veiled inferences that unless you study the past, you will not understand.

Keeping with thought, those "ideals" often translate to this "statement" in the minds of non whites:

"We built America, not you. You exist here because we allow you too. and based on its history, we have the right to determine if YOU should be here or not"

Of course, since for the most part, EVERY tax paying American citizen who was born here and resides here, has a right to be here.

 

[IM2]

Molly doesn't seem to understand why she's been called a racist. In her mind she's has never made a racist commemt.

.]
You would think using the "N" word amongst themselves would be nothing but a reason to incite anger with white people, why use a word you hate to be called by white people, unless it is to start shit?

These ae just 2..
.

You call people racists (as I've pointed out before.) You just dance around the subject and let others hint at it while you second their sentiment. You're part of that group people call the KIan with a tan.

There is no klan with a tan. What you define as racism is not racism.

Prejudice, bigotry, intolerance - call it what you like. Wrong is wrong.

The attitude that I have to agree with views such as yours in order to express an opinion may not be your definition of racism, but no matter what you'd like to call it, it is wrong.

You're a joke. I've never said you had to agree with me. You came in here talking about standing up to someone and got your ass handed to you. We do not have to accept your racist views, and we don't have to tolerate them. Refusing to tolerate racism is not bigotry. And blacks doing that are not extremists. There are no black extremists here.

I don't have a definition of racism, but the dictionary does.

Definition of racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b : a political or social system founded on racism

So you show me where in the hell this definition says that opposing racist ideology and beliefs such as what you have presented is racism.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

You are not required to do anything I was just demonstrating a methodical way that the courts use to determine if something is true or false or happened or didn't happen. It's also kind of a representation of how we write computer code.

So I ask again, what is so difficult about admitting that the United States has a racist past? Is it something that is so shameful and heinous that some of you can't even acknowledge it's existence?

 

[Humorme]

Molly doesn't seem to understand why she's been called a racist. In her mind she's has never made a racist commemt.

.]
You would think using the "N" word amongst themselves would be nothing but a reason to incite anger with white people, why use a word you hate to be called by white people, unless it is to start shit?

These ae just 2..
.

You call people racists (as I've pointed out before.) You just dance around the subject and let others hint at it while you second their sentiment. You're part of that group people call the KIan with a tan.

There is no klan with a tan. What you define as racism is not racism.

Prejudice, bigotry, intolerance - call it what you like. Wrong is wrong.

The attitude that I have to agree with views such as yours in order to express an opinion may not be your definition of racism, but no matter what you'd like to call it, it is wrong.

You're a joke. I've never said you had to agree with me. You came in here talking about standing up to someone and got your ass handed to you. We do not have to accept your racist views, and we don't have to tolerate them. Refusing to tolerate racism is not bigotry. And blacks doing that are not extremists. There are no black extremists here.

I don't have a definition of racism, but the dictionary does.

Definition of racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b : a political or social system founded on racism

So you show me where in the hell this definition says that opposing racist ideology and beliefs such as what you have presented is racism.

I don't know whether to blame your stupidity on being delusional or just plain short of IQ points. Your incessant bullying and belittling people doesn't mean you handed their ass to them.

When you have lost the support of a lot of the people who used to back liberal causes, sensible people would see that it was YOU getting their ass handed to them.

Your mental midgetry is duly noted and you should change your board name to the Grand Wizard.

So a political or social system founded on the concept of race (i.e. the NAACP) would be racist by your definition. I'll stipulate to that.

 

[Humorme]

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

You are not required to do anything I was just demonstrating a methodical way that the courts use to determine if something is true or false or happened or didn't happen. It's also kind of a representation of how we write computer code.

So I ask again, what is so difficult about admitting that the United States has a racist past? Is it something that is so shameful and heinous that some of you can't even acknowledge it's existence?

Only an idiot would argue a fact. But, your problem is that racism is standard fare throughout the world. You don't have a problem with it anywhere in the world OR with any other race other than the white people. So, you're part of the racist present.

Yesterday is gone and there is a point where the current generation does not (legally nor morally) have to pay for the alleged wrongs that happened generations ago AND that do not affect you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Even if true, its in the past.

I believe that there is such a thing as residual effect on the future because of the past.

No, at some point the babying of any group of people by the generation's that have way since moved on must soon end. It's really embarrassing that a group of people think that they should be treated in a special way at this point in time in our history. At some point the choices people make be it within their culture, finances, lifestyles etc have got to be made freely by those people themselves, and the consequences of their actions must be accounted for in connection to the choices they (the makers of such choices), have since made for themselves and not be blamed on anyone else. The blame game must end.

The governments handling of the history between the blacks and the whites has been flawed big time, and corrections stand to be made in it all.

Depending on how one interprets history

The "Shit" I talk is the Truth, that you lefties can't refute, which is why you so often go to the Logical Fallacy of Ad Hominem.


Your "feelings hurt" is just spin on your common lefty desire to be able to lie and insult without being called on your shit.


Your "girly" is just an insult and a lie. As I already explained.



This is not a verbal beating. This is libs losing an argument and being assholes because of it.


SOP.

The "shit" that you talk, is your one sided view of what truth is, which makes it "shit". And most of the "shit" that you talk is far from truth.

Case in point:
Why would you insist that I'm a liberal? You have no idea how I vote or who's political views I agree or disagree with. So if you label people, you may get labled as well. Thats how it is here.

There is no argument to lose here. This is a RACE RELATIONS forum, and at some point, everyone who posts here gets called a racist.....by a complete stranger.


If you cannot understand the simplicity of that, then you really are a bigger tool than you appear to be.

Nothing insulting about, it's strictly an opinion and observation of how someone perceives how you reason....or fail to.

The fact that this is the RACE RELATIONS forum, does not justify calling some one a racist.



Calling someone a racist, should be reserved for people who state racist beliefs.




Your friend, in her attempt to support her calling me a racist, cited that I did not answer a question, buried in a large post of hers.


That was her supporting evidence for calling me a vile name.


That is bullshit. And that is what you are defending.


You lose.

There is nothing for me to "lose" here. It's an anonymous forum, frequented by a majority of people like YOU that I am elated to NOT KNOW personally.

Sure there is. You made an argument that your friend was justified in calling me a vile insult for no reason.


You lost that argument. You lose.


That this is an anonymous forum, doesn't change that. That it won't change your life, doesn't change that.


Nothing about my statement implies real significant harm to you.


Yet, you took a stupid stance, and you lost.

In a few cases, there are some here who make sense.

Your warped perception of what is "vile" versus what is not, in a setting like this is childish and resembles the logic of a 10 year old, who failed the 5th grade.

In our society, "racist" is a very serious insult. Careers, lives are ruined by being labeled as such, whether the accusation is true or not.


To deny that it is a vile insult, is absurd.

It is an indisputable fact that in a forum called "Race Relations" even the most benign and innocuous individual will at some point in time be referred to as a "Racist".

Only because assholes like to call people names. Nothing I have said in this thread justifies calling me such a name, and I have demonstrated that, by challenging your friend to back it up, and her utter failure to do so.

You are quick on the trigger to accuse others of "race baiting" and in turn have no moral compass regarding some of what you have stated.

I am quick to call people on race baiting. It is a real problem in our society, and assholes who do it, need to be called on their shit.


My morals are fine.

And when you do get called out, you throw a whiny ***** tantrum.

ANd that's just an ass trying to minimizing my proper response to asses being asses.


Your lie is rejected.

If you can't understand that, and accept that by visiting this forum you WILL be subject to what everyone else here experiences, you're a damn fool.

I'm well aware that the world if full of lefty race baiting assholes, and I enjoy that on this site I get to call them on their bullshit.

You are not unique or above anyone else who posts here.

My arguments stand on their own merits or don't. That you feel a need to attack me personally, shows that my arguments are such that you cannot refute them.

But you appear to believe that you are.

Nope. Nothing I have said supports that stupid claim.

That makes you delusional.

Said the man that thinks that not answering a question is reason to call someone racist.

I get called racist. Nowhere have I even hinted that I am, because I am not.

Don't take it too personal. I get called "racist" all the time. My Chinese husband and children find it hilarious.

 

[IM2]

.
Definition of extremism

1 : the quality or state of being extreme

2 : advocacy of extreme measures or views : radicalism

So now it is become extreme to oppose the racism of whites.

We are in here with a bunch of foaming at the mouth mind added white racist lunatics.

The problem is, you are projecting.

I came here FIRST, challenging you and those like you, to disavow a racist that attacked me on a thread while admitting that "I stopped reading at..." So, bottom line, he attacks me while admitting he didn't read the freaking post!

YOU and your entourage that think you have the Internet sown up and can keep whites out by tolerating that kind of hatred and ignorance fulfill the very definition you posted.

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about. WTF? You have a problem with the First Amendment? It's not worth the paper it's printed on when you have extremists that do not allow for an equal exchange of ideas, thoughts, and opinions.

Why does anyone have to "disavow" someone else in order to permit you to have what you call "civil dialogue"?

Are you not capable of judging individuals based in their own actions towards YOU?

Why should I be required to admit or deny one individual's agenda in order to conduct a conversation on A single topic related to these peripheral issues?

You are not "required" to do anything. No one here is.

So, here is part 2 of what I had to say. We will soon see if all of it makes the cut... no more judging me without reading the applicable posts.

THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2

When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. Virtually every early state constitution had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.

We see our Christian culture in even the smallest details: like twelve jurors on a jury and a judge - in commemoration of the Lord's Last Supper. I could do an entire book about the Christian references in our nation's symbols.

Be that as it may, a lot of people know what the real fight is about. Back in the 1980s PBS ran a documentary called "Eyes on the Prize." From a racial perspective, we all know what that "prize" is. The prize is the control over that piece of real estate coveted by the rest of the world.

The extremists who created the race issue did so keep us focused on social issues so that the money powers could get control over America. The money powers infiltrated our political and legal institutions. And they created chaos. For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.

Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[note 1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)

Then there was this in the Constitution:

"Article I, Section. 2

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

Conservatives have a novel way of explaining why this was put into the Constitution and I don't agree with their explanation, but include a link before moving forward:

3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?

I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:

The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality.

LOL! You are here trying to explain that America was built upon a foundation on racism. You talk about Taney claiming how right he was but what you have chosen not to say is that blacks were not allowed to be citizens and property even though they were human beings. Him being a democrat in the 1800's doesn't change the fact of the racism of the republican pay in 2018.

We blacks fully understand this, whites like you seem to have the problem. Taney was not even close partially right. So then you use he constitution to continue justifying white racism. What is foundational to any understanding of the issue of race in THIS country is how this nation was built on white supremacy. America was built on the backs of people who were oppressed by white supremacists who came over here claiming to be escaping the tyranny of the king then established an even worse system of tyranny. You don't seem to understand that. We blacks understand all the racism/white supremacy you have explained. And it is racism based on the websters definition of the word.

Definition of racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b : a political or social system founded on racism

America is not the new Jerusalem. And if it would have been, it doesn't justify white supremacy. Learn this, the bible tells us that Satan is the father of lies:

John 8:44 New International Version (NIV)

44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.

Racism was started by whites at the founding of this nation. It was not made up by anyone black. There is no biblical basis for white supremacy. These words prove it:

Matthew 22:34
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together.
35 One of them, an expert in the Law, tested him with this question:
36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
37 Jesus replied, “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’
38 This is the first and greatest commandment.
39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’
40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”

That is what needs to be said.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem.

Okay we can agree upon this but are you hoping that because you're presenting it and you're white (presumably?) that they will accept it coming from you, whereas when I made the following statement several times they didn't believe it to be true simply because I'm black?

I've stated several times that the white race believed that God himself ordained their right as the superior race and the black race to be subservient to them and their progeny FOR ALL TIME as is stated in the Texas causes for secession​

Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality.

Those principles involved the subjugation and enslavement of an entire race of people and the slaughter of another, the native Americans.

Honestly, I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but can you at least see just from these few sentences why the claim that the white race is not MORE racist than the black race is so vehemently contested?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Molly doesn't seem to understand why she's been called a racist. In her mind she's has never made a racist commemt.

.]
You would think using the "N" word amongst themselves would be nothing but a reason to incite anger with white people, why use a word you hate to be called by white people, unless it is to start shit?

These ae just 2..
.

Actually, that's just one. Maybe spend a little less time and energy being butthurt, and a little more getting educated and being coherent.

Also, she didn't say anything racist. She asked a perfectly valid, logical question. The fact that you don't like it is not evidence of racism . . . at least, not on HER part.

 

[Cecilie1200]

To white boys in gym class who were actually taught that black people had tails.

You know this reminds me of some of my college classmates who were from Nigeria. Some of the white guys actually would make mocking statements about them living among the zebras and such never realizing how all that they were doing was putting their own ignorance on full display for everyone to see.

In order to be a racist, one must be too ignorant to realize how ignorant one actually is.

It's sort of an entry requirement.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm not allowed to be in the conversation until I stipulate, up front, to many things that, if I agreed, we'd all be wrong about.

Why is it so difficult to admit the U.S. of A. has racists origins? It's not like it's a secret or anything.

Maybe because, hundreds of years later, we're tired of STILL being beaten to death with it.

Also, like most historical things, it's not nearly that cut-and-dried and simple.

 

[Humorme]

Molly doesn't seem to understand why she's been called a racist. In her mind she's has never made a racist commemt.

.]
You would think using the "N" word amongst themselves would be nothing but a reason to incite anger with white people, why use a word you hate to be called by white people, unless it is to start shit?

These ae just 2..
.

You call people racists (as I've pointed out before.) You just dance around the subject and let others hint at it while you second their sentiment. You're part of that group people call the KIan with a tan.

There is no klan with a tan. What you define as racism is not racism.

Prejudice, bigotry, intolerance - call it what you like. Wrong is wrong.

The attitude that I have to agree with views such as yours in order to express an opinion may not be your definition of racism, but no matter what you'd like to call it, it is wrong.

You're a joke. I've never said you had to agree with me. You came in here talking about standing up to someone and got your ass handed to you. We do not have to accept your racist views, and we don't have to tolerate them. Refusing to tolerate racism is not bigotry. And blacks doing that are not extremists. There are no black extremists here.

I don't have a definition of racism, but the dictionary does.

Definition of racism

1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2 a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles

b : a political or social system founded on racism

So you show me where in the hell this definition says that opposing racist ideology and beliefs such as what you have presented is racism.

THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID.

This reply is a continuation of posts 1445 and 1448:

I have established in prior posts that the founders created a Constitution that was specific to building a constitutional Republic for the benefit of themselves and their posterity (their race) as evidenced by most of the early state constitutions.

America has fought many wars to secure the Liberties of foreign nations - and all without claiming a single acre of land for themselves. The policies of this country include giving BILLIONS of dollars to countries whose people wanting their own homeland. katsteve2012 wrote:

"Those are thinly veiled inferences that unless you study the past, you will not understand.

Keeping with thought, those "ideals" often translate to this "statement" in the minds of non whites:

"We built America, not you. You exist here because we allow you too. and based on its history, we have the right to determine if YOU should be here or not"

Of course, since for the most part, EVERY tax paying American citizen who was born here and resides here, has a right to be here..."

I would say that katsteve2012 was at least 80 percent right in that assessment. What pisses me off about the whites is that, it is like katsteve2012 says, "Those are thinly veiled inferences..." In my mind, whites don't have a clue as to their history nor their destiny. In many cases they DO cherry pick which laws and which tidbits they want to post on these boards in support of their ideology - which is almost as weak as that of the black extremists.

I realize that black people don't want to hear this, but whites DID build this nation. Pharaoh Khufu is credited with building the Great Pyramid in about 2551 B.C. So, when you Google him you will find that he is credited with that feat. Did he haul the rocks, sweat his ass off, and do the physical labor? No. Did he draw up the blueprints and supervise all the laborers? So, who were the people that DID the physical labor? Nobody cares and nobody bothers to record it for the most part.

Our system of laws; the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation and the many major decisions that took the idea and put them into an achievable form in the United States was the product of white people.

Their intention was to build a homeland for whites. While you think on that I'm going to be thinking about the rest of the answer to katsteve2012's response that every tax paying citizen has a "right" to be here. He'll be coming back. He cannot afford to miss the answer.