Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Blacks don't have code talk ??? I know, I know, blacks are still these innocent humble never hateful enslaved people that have absolutely no capacity to hate someone or to be a racist eh ? You know we all rode on board the turnip truck a time or two I guess, but not everyone fell off and bumped their head.. lol

According to the investigative file it was not. Best I could tell they were probably pissed off because they thought they were being laughed at.

 

[beagle9]

Blacks don't have code talk ??? I know, I know, blacks are still these innocent humble never hateful enslaved people that have absolutely no capacity to hate someone or to be a racist eh ? You know we all rode on board the turnip truck a time or two I guess, but not everyone fell off and bumped their head.. lol

According to the investigative file it was not. Best I could tell they were probably pissed off because they thought they were being laughed at.

Did you write your response in response to the above that I wrote ?? I ask you this because you just lost me with that response.

 

[Humorme]

Yeah in times past, the black people used code via singing songs. Then they heard about how the mafia would discuss their bookie business dealings in the form of discussions about baseball.

You don't like my playlist?

I support your Rights whether I like the playlist or not.

 

[Humorme]

People that feel the way the black extremists feel ***pose a danger to the security of our country***

Oh hell no....

Oh Hell yeah. His Lordship has convinced me that if he were in control, every white would be hunted down like an animal and slaughtered. Remember all I said in sarcasm? All his Lordship could do was post LOL.

When you have that level of intolerance and implied threats from his disciples, they pose as much of a threat as that group of gangs hiding behind legitimate white organizations while they conspire to wage war against those they don't like.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Again, incorrect. The provisions were put in place to prohibit specific actions that were used before to stifle the black vote such as requiring a reading test or proof of residency. Without these provisions, a state or local government could legally impose these requirements whereby the blacks' ability to vote would be hindered while at the same time claim that minorities technically still had the right to vote in their states.

If the question is whether or not the 15th was followed then you are correct, it was not always followed. But if the question is whether or not blacks had the right to vote, the answer is yes.

Signed on Aug. 6, 1965, it was meant to correct “a clear and simple wrong,” as Lyndon Johnson said. “Millions of Americans are denied the right to vote because of their color. This law will ensure them the right to vote.”

Johnson was talking about the Voting Rights Act itself, not the provisions.

Wrong.

When has there ever been a amendment to the constitution with provisions protecting the rights of whites to vote?

There never has been and any idiot knows this. The point is, the provisions do not provide that right, they only protect it.

Actually if you can't vote without those provisions they do provide the right.

Incorrect. You can vote without the provisions as long as no one tries to implement the measures outlined in them. Not all voting districts tried to restrict the black right to vote with literacy tests and whatnot so the provisions were pretty much irrelevant to them and the blacks simply voted as they had the right to do like anybody else. The provisions were put in place for those districts that were hostile to the idea of the black right to vote.

You have to look at it this way: Even when certain voting districts were implementing these measures, blacks still technically had the right to vote as the measures were applied to everyone, not just blacks. They just knew it would be more difficult for blacks to meet these standards. The provisions were a way to get around those legal loopholes that made it possible to implement measures that made it harder for them.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

What legislation makes it harder for blacks to vote?

And don't ask the standard dumb ass question like you don't know where it happens.

Read the linked article.

There's no article linked here.

Try looking at post 1924

Okay, I've read it and I still don't see anything that would restrict a black person's voting rights. The I.D. issue seems to be the biggest one but I honestly do not understand why this should be a problem for blacks.

Yeah I know. You wouldn't see it unless it specifically said blacks can't vote anymore and even then you'd try claiming blacks made that up.

You haven't answered the question: What legislation makes it harder for blacks to vote?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

If the question is whether or not the 15th was followed then you are correct, it was not always followed. But if the question is whether or not blacks had the right to vote, the answer is yes.

If I understand you correctly you're stating that "on paper" black had the right to vote per the 15th Amendment but in practice the 15th might as well not even have existed, correct?

Sort of similar to the 13th granting citizenship to Americans of African descent but then the 14th still being needed because black people were still being discriminated against in violation of the 13th we can presume?

Pretty much. I'm not saying blacks didn't have difficulties, obviously they did or the Voting Rights Act would not have been necessary. I'm just saying that technically, the law provided blacks with the right to vote.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Code words

The EEOC’s guide to race and color discrimination describes ***subtle forms of racism in the workplace***. First of all, there are discriminatory hiring practices. For example, the EEOC cites studies that show that Whites with a criminal record get three times as many callbacks as Blacks with the same criminal record, and even more callbacks than Blacks with no record. The EEOC states that temp agencies prefer White applicants 3 to 1 over Black. The EEOC cites studies showing that equally impressive resumes with common Black names are 50% less likely to get interviews.


There is also discrimination on the jobsite. A recent lawsuit that EEOC filed involved a supervisor who called an employee by a racial slur spelled backwards. The EEOC takes incidents involving “code words” very seriously. The EEOC maintains that the law does not only recognize certain established racial slurs in a cut-and-dry and categorical fashion. The EEOC considers all of the facts, context, and circumstances, such as who is stating the slurs, their tone of voice, and the employer’s intent in so doing.

​

 

[Correll]

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Unbelievable. We all know that the "provisions" were to ensure that certain "practices and barriers that "affected" the overall right of people who were historically disenfranchised to vote were controlled.

Although the "provisions" were not the actual voting rights act, they were a component of ensuring that the "process" of voting was equal in areas where it had a history of inequality.

Certain racist assholes will nit pick and play semantics anyway possible in order to deflect.

The voting rights of blacks do not come up for renewal.


That is not nitpicking.


What he is trying to imply, not state openly, because then it can be easily refuted,

is that without special federal oversight, evil white racists would end black voting as per the Jim Crow South, of several generations ago.


What gets me, is that in saying that, he is utterly insulting the whites of this country, yet the libs are happy to just accept it.



Calling them "Cucks" is really making more and more sense to me.

I did not state that voting rights are coming up for renewal. Neither did he state that directly.

As usual, you looked for a reason to get your feelings hurt, and ASSume that "the entire white population was being insulted.

Oh, he didn't state that directly? Now YOU are a lying sack of shit, just like he is.

"Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas." Direct quote from him.

Tell me again that he "didn't state that directly". Go on, SAY it, liar.

Because that's what they did. But while you keep trying to discredit that, you refuse to answer this question:

So can one of you good republican conservative non racist whites facing the same racism as blacks explain to me when does provisions of white peoples right to vote come before congress for renewal?

No, they didn't. YOu are a liar.

 

[Correll]

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Unbelievable. We all know that the "provisions" were to ensure that certain "practices and barriers that "affected" the overall right of people who were historically disenfranchised to vote were controlled.

Although the "provisions" were not the actual voting rights act, they were a component of ensuring that the "process" of voting was equal in areas where it had a history of inequality.

Certain racist assholes will nit pick and play semantics anyway possible in order to deflect.

The voting rights of blacks do not come up for renewal.


That is not nitpicking.


What he is trying to imply, not state openly, because then it can be easily refuted,

is that without special federal oversight, evil white racists would end black voting as per the Jim Crow South, of several generations ago.


What gets me, is that in saying that, he is utterly insulting the whites of this country, yet the libs are happy to just accept it.



Calling them "Cucks" is really making more and more sense to me.

I did not state that voting rights are coming up for renewal. Neither did he state that directly.

As usual, you looked for a reason to get your feelings hurt, and ASSume that "the entire white population was being insulted.

Oh, he didn't state that directly? Now YOU are a lying sack of shit, just like he is.

"Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas." Direct quote from him.

Tell me again that he "didn't state that directly". Go on, SAY it, liar.

I will address your question, when you ask it in a civilized manner.

I don't normally engage in any dialouge with low class, foul mouthed females.

Weak dodge.

 

[katsteve2012]

Unbelievable. We all know that the "provisions" were to ensure that certain "practices and barriers that "affected" the overall right of people who were historically disenfranchised to vote were controlled.

Although the "provisions" were not the actual voting rights act, they were a component of ensuring that the "process" of voting was equal in areas where it had a history of inequality.

Certain racist assholes will nit pick and play semantics anyway possible in order to deflect.

The voting rights of blacks do not come up for renewal.


That is not nitpicking.


What he is trying to imply, not state openly, because then it can be easily refuted,

is that without special federal oversight, evil white racists would end black voting as per the Jim Crow South, of several generations ago.


What gets me, is that in saying that, he is utterly insulting the whites of this country, yet the libs are happy to just accept it.



Calling them "Cucks" is really making more and more sense to me.

I did not state that voting rights are coming up for renewal. Neither did he state that directly.

As usual, you looked for a reason to get your feelings hurt, and ASSume that "the entire white population was being insulted.

Oh, he didn't state that directly? Now YOU are a lying sack of shit, just like he is.

"Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas." Direct quote from him.

Tell me again that he "didn't state that directly". Go on, SAY it, liar.

I will address your question, when you ask it in a civilized manner.

I don't normally engage in any dialouge with low class, foul mouthed females.

Weak dodge.

It wasn't a "dodge", Beav.
Besides, I was not addressing you in that post.

 

[Correll]

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Unbelievable. We all know that the "provisions" were to ensure that certain practices and barriers that "affected" the overall right of people who were historically disenfranchised to vote were controlled.

Although the "provisions" were not the actual voting rights act, they were a component of ensuring that the "process" of voting was equal in areas where it had a history of inequality.

Certain racist assholes will nit pick and play semantics anyway possible in order to deflect.

"Nitpick and play semantics" = pointing out lies and deliberate misrepresentations.

"Racist" = anyone who refuses to cater to IM2's pity party.

That's your opinion. And it is my option to disagree.

What I notice is that IM2 makes certain statements that cause some who post here discomfort.

But, after close to 8 years of posting here, I see a distinct scenario that gets played out here like a daily rerun of an old show.

Numerous threads are posted here associating the VAST majority of the black population with criminality, unemployment, and in your own words "self pity".

I know enough about IM2 to know that he had a successful career, and has no reason for a so called "pity party", but the fact that he brings up history and the existence of racism that has gotten better in certain ways is viewed as a verbal assault on the entire white population. And he has never said "All White People" in any statement that I have read.

Conversely, I have seen numerous posts over the years here that do not just imply, but fkat out characterize the entire black population as mentally inferior criminals.

That being said, when certain people read into his comments as an "insult" to the entire race of white people, it is easy to question why they would be so defensive.

NOT "my opinion". FACT. You can disagree with facts all you like.

What I notice is that IM2 makes "certain statements" that are racist and offensive and LYING, and people are usually uncomfortable about such crass, low-class behavior. I also notice jackasses like you bending yourselves into pretzels to try to defend it and pretend he's not the load of rancid snake shit that he is.

"Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas."

If you defend that, you don't have the moral authority to say shit to me.

"Moral authority"? This is a public message board, and you are not anyone special.

No one has any authority here.

"FACT"? A fact is something that is proven scientifically or is a fact because it is history that has already happened. You have an "OPINION", and you do not express yourself very well......at all.

You have a serious problem. With an empty space between your ears, which makes for a complete lack of objectivity.

That entire post was meaningless garbage that didn't say anything.

IM2 lied about the 2006 vote. You defended his lie. That undermines your credibility.


Those are facts, plain to see, and your denial is irrational.

 

[Correll]

The voting rights of blacks do not come up for renewal.


That is not nitpicking.


What he is trying to imply, not state openly, because then it can be easily refuted,

is that without special federal oversight, evil white racists would end black voting as per the Jim Crow South, of several generations ago.


What gets me, is that in saying that, he is utterly insulting the whites of this country, yet the libs are happy to just accept it.



Calling them "Cucks" is really making more and more sense to me.

I am acutely aware of what most whi post here are "attempting to imply" in most threads.

Every reason for the provisions is crystal clear, and although they do not directly affect the core right of the vote, they are a component of the process of voting.

As for what he stated being "utterly insulting to the white people of this country", that is an overly sensitive reaction.

It is likely that when this legislation was signed into law, the majority of those expressing such outrage at being insulted were not even here, so such hypersensitivity is absurd.

As far as "cucks" go, Im not certain what its relationship to this thread is. Its a stupid expression.

Generally used by stupid people.

THe insult is not the law being signed in 1965.


THe insult is claiming that it is still needed today, as though the whites today are straining at the leash to bring back toll taxes and literacy tests.


That white libs see you blacks insulting them and still suck up to you, despite your obvious racist contempt, is them being "Cucks".

There was no insult against "the whites of today" Unless you are a collectivist.

Riiiiiight. IM2 babbles on and on endlessly about the evils of "the whites of today" because HE'S a collectivist, but the problem is that WE are mysteriously and unexplainably viewing his insults as insults.

And? Maybe you should ask him what HE is really saying as opposed to assuming that anyone who reads and understands what he is saying is wrong.

We've tried. He does not clarify. He mostly just repeats what he said, and attacks you for not admitting that he is right.

 

[Correll]

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

Unbelievable. We all know that the "provisions" were to ensure that certain practices and barriers that "affected" the overall right of people who were historically disenfranchised to vote were controlled.

Although the "provisions" were not the actual voting rights act, they were a component of ensuring that the "process" of voting was equal in areas where it had a history of inequality.

Certain racist assholes will nit pick and play semantics anyway possible in order to deflect.

"Nitpick and play semantics" = pointing out lies and deliberate misrepresentations.

"Racist" = anyone who refuses to cater to IM2's pity party.

That's your opinion. And it is my option to disagree.

What I notice is that IM2 makes certain statements that cause some who post here discomfort.

But, after close to 8 years of posting here, I see a distinct scenario that gets played out here like a daily rerun of an old show.

Numerous threads are posted here associating the VAST majority of the black population with criminality, unemployment, and in your own words "self pity".

I know enough about IM2 to know that he had a successful career, and has no reason for a so called "pity party", but the fact that he brings up history and the existence of racism that has gotten better in certain ways is viewed as a verbal assault on the entire white population. And he has never said "All White People" in any statement that I have read.

Conversely, I have seen numerous posts over the years here that do not just imply, but fkat out characterize the entire black population as mentally inferior criminals.

That being said, when certain people read into his comments as an "insult" to the entire race of white people, it is easy to question why they would be so defensive.

NOT "my opinion". FACT. You can disagree with facts all you like.

What I notice is that IM2 makes "certain statements" that are racist and offensive and LYING, and people are usually uncomfortable about such crass, low-class behavior. I also notice jackasses like you bending yourselves into pretzels to try to defend it and pretend he's not the load of rancid snake shit that he is.

"Congress voted in 2006 to extend the black right to vote for 25 more yeas."

If you defend that, you don't have the moral authority to say shit to me.

I've made no such comments. If so you post one. Our right to vote was up for renewal in 2006. I understand you are dumb but of congress had decided to get rid of the provision that stopped poll taxes tests and other things, then our right to vote was very much in danger.
...

Are you really so stupid, that you don't realize the difference between your rights, and special protections for your rights?


You keep saying the stupid shit, even after it is pointed out to you, and attacking us for not addressing the issue, that you DID NOT BRING UP, you fool.

 

[Correll]

The voting rights of blacks do not come up for renewal.


That is not nitpicking.


What he is trying to imply, not state openly, because then it can be easily refuted,

is that without special federal oversight, evil white racists would end black voting as per the Jim Crow South, of several generations ago.


What gets me, is that in saying that, he is utterly insulting the whites of this country, yet the libs are happy to just accept it.



Calling them "Cucks" is really making more and more sense to me.

I am acutely aware of what most whi post here are "attempting to imply" in most threads.

Every reason for the provisions is crystal clear, and although they do not directly affect the core right of the vote, they are a component of the process of voting.

As for what he stated being "utterly insulting to the white people of this country", that is an overly sensitive reaction.

It is likely that when this legislation was signed into law, the majority of those expressing such outrage at being insulted were not even here, so such hypersensitivity is absurd.

As far as "cucks" go, Im not certain what its relationship to this thread is. Its a stupid expression.

Generally used by stupid people.

THe insult is not the law being signed in 1965.


THe insult is claiming that it is still needed today, as though the whites today are straining at the leash to bring back toll taxes and literacy tests.


That white libs see you blacks insulting them and still suck up to you, despite your obvious racist contempt, is them being "Cucks".

There was no insult against "the whites of today" Unless you are a collectivist.

Riiiiiight. IM2 babbles on and on endlessly about the evils of "the whites of today" because HE'S a collectivist, but the problem is that WE are mysteriously and unexplainably viewing his insults as insults.

And if "YOU " are that easily insulted by something stated on an anonymous message board, and do not possess the mental acuity to determine if it applies directly to you, then it may be possible that your emotional maturity is questionable.

NO, the problem is IM2 and you.


Try not insulting people, or defending insults and lies.

 

[Humorme]

Code words

The EEOC’s guide to race and color discrimination describes ***subtle forms of racism in the workplace***. First of all, there are discriminatory hiring practices. For example, the EEOC cites studies that show that Whites with a criminal record get three times as many callbacks as Blacks with the same criminal record, and even more callbacks than Blacks with no record. The EEOC states that temp agencies prefer White applicants 3 to 1 over Black. The EEOC cites studies showing that equally impressive resumes with common Black names are 50% less likely to get interviews.


There is also discrimination on the jobsite. A recent lawsuit that EEOC filed involved a supervisor who called an employee by a racial slur spelled backwards. The EEOC takes incidents involving “code words” very seriously. The EEOC maintains that the law does not only recognize certain established racial slurs in a cut-and-dry and categorical fashion. The EEOC considers all of the facts, context, and circumstances, such as who is stating the slurs, their tone of voice, and the employer’s intent in so doing.

​

What is the EEOC comprised of? What are their personal biases?

Most employers would not be so stupid as to tell the EEOC they prefer White applicants.

 

[katsteve2012]

I am acutely aware of what most whi post here are "attempting to imply" in most threads.

Every reason for the provisions is crystal clear, and although they do not directly affect the core right of the vote, they are a component of the process of voting.

As for what he stated being "utterly insulting to the white people of this country", that is an overly sensitive reaction.

It is likely that when this legislation was signed into law, the majority of those expressing such outrage at being insulted were not even here, so such hypersensitivity is absurd.

As far as "cucks" go, Im not certain what its relationship to this thread is. Its a stupid expression.

Generally used by stupid people.

THe insult is not the law being signed in 1965.


THe insult is claiming that it is still needed today, as though the whites today are straining at the leash to bring back toll taxes and literacy tests.


That white libs see you blacks insulting them and still suck up to you, despite your obvious racist contempt, is them being "Cucks".

There was no insult against "the whites of today" Unless you are a collectivist.

Riiiiiight. IM2 babbles on and on endlessly about the evils of "the whites of today" because HE'S a collectivist, but the problem is that WE are mysteriously and unexplainably viewing his insults as insults.

And if "YOU " are that easily insulted by something stated on an anonymous message board, and do not possess the mental acuity to determine if it applies directly to you, then it may be possible that your emotional maturity is questionable.

NO, the problem is IM2 and you.




Try not insulting people, or defending insults and lies.

You nor anyone else tells me "what to defend". You should try not being such a pompous asshole and you won't be insulted in return by me.

As far as IM2 goes, he is a grown man,

Do not speak to me about him. Grow some balls and talk to him yourself.

 

[Correll]

The 1965 voting rights provisions is not "black people's right to vote".

Try to be less stupid.

Yeah we know Correll.

Don't try the talking about the 15th amendment son. We all know that amendment was not followed.

Try to be less stupid.

If you know that, then why did you refer to the "black right to vote"?

Because it was the blacks right to vote. Do not try to pretend the 15th was followed junior. .

Wow. I see what you are trying say. But you are too dumb to actually say it.


Thank you for once again insulting every white in this country, by pretending that they are the same today as they were in 1955.

I'm not insulting every white in this country by saying there are whites who still have the same attitude whites had in1818. Because there are whites who say the same thing. You are a prime example of it.

You repeatedly assume behavior from whites AS A GROUP, that pretends they are the same as they were in 1955.


That is you insulting every white in this country.


And since you insulted me, by falsely calling me a prime example of it,


I feel comfortable pointing out the truth, ie that your behavior reveals you to be a race baiting piece of shit liar.

 

[Correll]

The voting rights of blacks do not come up for renewal.


That is not nitpicking.


What he is trying to imply, not state openly, because then it can be easily refuted,

is that without special federal oversight, evil white racists would end black voting as per the Jim Crow South, of several generations ago.


What gets me, is that in saying that, he is utterly insulting the whites of this country, yet the libs are happy to just accept it.



Calling them "Cucks" is really making more and more sense to me.

I am acutely aware of what most whi post here are "attempting to imply" in most threads.

Every reason for the provisions is crystal clear, and although they do not directly affect the core right of the vote, they are a component of the process of voting.

As for what he stated being "utterly insulting to the white people of this country", that is an overly sensitive reaction.

It is likely that when this legislation was signed into law, the majority of those expressing such outrage at being insulted were not even here, so such hypersensitivity is absurd.

As far as "cucks" go, Im not certain what its relationship to this thread is. Its a stupid expression.

Generally used by stupid people.

THe insult is not the law being signed in 1965.


THe insult is claiming that it is still needed today, as though the whites today are straining at the leash to bring back toll taxes and literacy tests.


That white libs see you blacks insulting them and still suck up to you, despite your obvious racist contempt, is them being "Cucks".

There was no insult against "the whites of today" Unless you are a collectivist.

The smear directed at whites is clear.


Your lie is dismissed.

The "smear" is all in the imaginations of small minded people, who claim to "have no guilt", but in reality act guilty as hell.



YOU, and your pathetic persecution complex are dismissed.
ROFLMAO.

The smear is still completely clear, despite your stupid lies.

 

[katsteve2012]

I am acutely aware of what most whi post here are "attempting to imply" in most threads.

Every reason for the provisions is crystal clear, and although they do not directly affect the core right of the vote, they are a component of the process of voting.

As for what he stated being "utterly insulting to the white people of this country", that is an overly sensitive reaction.

It is likely that when this legislation was signed into law, the majority of those expressing such outrage at being insulted were not even here, so such hypersensitivity is absurd.

As far as "cucks" go, Im not certain what its relationship to this thread is. Its a stupid expression.

Generally used by stupid people.

THe insult is not the law being signed in 1965.


THe insult is claiming that it is still needed today, as though the whites today are straining at the leash to bring back toll taxes and literacy tests.


That white libs see you blacks insulting them and still suck up to you, despite your obvious racist contempt, is them being "Cucks".

There was no insult against "the whites of today" Unless you are a collectivist.

The smear directed at whites is clear.


Your lie is dismissed.

The "smear" is all in the imaginations of small minded people, who claim to "have no guilt", but in reality act guilty as hell.



YOU, and your pathetic persecution complex are dismissed.
ROFLMAO.

The smear is still completely clear, despite your stupid lies.

I told NO lies. There was NO smear. If your feelings are hurt, too bad.

You have the option of putting me on ignore, and not seeing anything that I post. It's up to you.