If you are disliked because of your race...

[Humorme]

.....

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States....

And de jure.

And you told that little white lie about being a teacher. de facto is an antonym for the word de jure. It can't be both - no more than someone can be a virgin whore.

 

[Humorme]

IF and when you figure out that the Kennesaw is what the law is (and NO law does what it purports to do) I would list the things that prove my case on the subtle genocide of the white culture (which is inclusive of race.)

I made a simple statement about the Kennesaw law AND you want to argue your interpretation of the law after I had stated it was largely symbolic. But, symbolic or not, it had a great enough impact on the people that its interpretative value by the general public (who are not so anal retentive that they spend hours trying to put their own spin on the statute) resulted in a drop in crime. And even that is not the issue.

What I deduce by you constantly misrepresenting what I say, is that you want to draw me into a similar battle of which you are not qualified, simply to try and display what you falsely believe to be your superior intellect.

Until your ass has been in court a few times; until you have had your Freedom and Liberty at stake; until your life has been threatened and you can name scores of friends and acquaintances that have been killed, you don't stand a snowball's chance in Hell of winning any pretend debate on this board or any other.

Until you can admit what I said and in what context, regarding Kennesaw, I have to question your motives. Are you wanting to learn something OR prove that you think you are superior to those whose lives you don't know shit about?

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again:

Sec. 34-21. - Heads of households to maintain firearms.
(a)In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.
(b)Exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who suffer a physical or mental disability which would prohibit them from using such a firearm. Further exempt from the effect of this section are those heads of households who are paupers or who conscientiously oppose maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs or religious doctrine, or persons convicted of a felony.

(Ord. No. 2009-03, Exh. A, 2-16-09)

Municode Library

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point

Even if it were more than symbolic, even if the police attempted to enforce the law, it would not apply to every home in Kennesaw.

^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun.

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example:

I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can.

I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious.

Many people fall for what they think laws say and the reputation dissuades a lot of would be street criminals from setting up shot in / around Kennesaw.

Be that as it may, Kennesaw's reputation illustrates, on a small scale, what I see as being indicative all across the nation.

Wow. Just wow.

Please, go look at your post #63. Then look at the very next post, which was by me, post #64. In post #63, you made the first reference to Kennesaw's gun law. This is what you said:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is all that you said about Kennesaw's gun law in that post.

In the very next post, in the post you got so upset about because I used multi-quote, I said this in response to your statement on Kennesaw:

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

How far do I want to go? I don't know. I'm wondering how long you will ignore the evidence which shows quite clearly that you are mistaken. I said that the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the post directly after you first mentioned it. I said that before you said anything about it being symbolic. It's not difficult to see. I've given you the post numbers, I've quoted the relevant portions of the posts, it's all right in front of you. I have no idea what it is that makes you incapable or unwilling to admit any mistake, but it's fascinating.

Do you deny that the only thing you said about Kennesaw in post #63 is what I quoted here? Do you deny that that was the first time you brought up Kennesaw in this thread? Do you deny that I said the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the very next post? I'm extremely curious how you rationalize arguing that you called the law symbolic before me, or how you rationalize your statement earlier that I "did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic," when I have done so multiple times. It's interesting and baffling.

Certainly mistaken beliefs about the Kennesaw law may have caused a decline in the crime rate. The city itself only claims that the burglary rate declined after the law passed on its website, but either way, potential criminals might have expected homes to have guns in them, even though the law was not enforced. If nothing else, that such a law passed would indicate that plenty of Kennesaw residents probably already had guns in their homes.

I don't know what you think Kennesaw's reputation indicates in relation to this thread. Is it just that gun ownership is a crime deterrent, or does it relate to the racial theme that the thread began with?

Really? I start ignoring what I said to you and you're STILL wanting to argue about Kennesaw?

"I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?"

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious. It is wholly irrelevant that you "agreed" with me when I made that statement. It was made as a preemptive move to discourage you from making the silly argument about what you think the Kennesaw law means.

The point that I made, since you didn't keep up, is that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. Unable to adapt, the standard is to use democracy to vote the whites out of power and replace it with socialism or worse. And so you choose to argue over this and YOU are the one that don't want to drop it. Maybe you've figured out that Google may get you in over your head this time.

 

[Unkotare]

.....

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States....

And de jure.

And you told that little white lie about being a teacher. de facto is an antonym for the word de jure. It can't be both - no more than someone can be a virgin whore.

You really don’t know what the terms mean, do you?

 

[Liquid Reigns]

How far do I want to go? I don't know. I'm wondering how long you will ignore the evidence which shows quite clearly that you are mistaken. I said that the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the post directly after you first mentioned it. I said that before you said anything about it being symbolic. It's not difficult to see. I've given you the post numbers, I've quoted the relevant portions of the posts, it's all right in front of you. I have no idea what it is that makes you incapable or unwilling to admit any mistake, but it's fascinating.

Do you deny that the only thing you said about Kennesaw in post #63 is what I quoted here? Do you deny that that was the first time you brought up Kennesaw in this thread? Do you deny that I said the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the very next post? I'm extremely curious how you rationalize arguing that you called the law symbolic before me, or how you rationalize your statement earlier that I "did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic," when I have done so multiple times. It's interesting and baffling.

Certainly mistaken beliefs about the Kennesaw law may have caused a decline in the crime rate. The city itself only claims that the burglary rate declined after the law passed on its website, but either way, potential criminals might have expected homes to have guns in them, even though the law was not enforced. If nothing else, that such a law passed would indicate that plenty of Kennesaw residents probably already had guns in their homes.

I don't know what you think Kennesaw's reputation indicates in relation to this thread. Is it just that gun ownership is a crime deterrent, or does it relate to the racial theme that the thread began with?

You will never get him to admit his claims are inane and that he interprets things from way out in left field.

 

[Montrovant]

I guess you don't want to let the subject go.

I don't have to admit to what you said, as I've actually quoted it. Multiple times. Here, I'll do so again: How have I misrepresented that?

I have been happy to admit and agree that the law is symbolic. Even as a symbolic law, the text of the law means it does not cover everyone. Not every home is required to have a gun in it whether the law is symbolic or not. That the text of the law provides exemptions, meaning it does not require each home to have a gun in it, is an objective fact. Even the text which says that heads of households must maintain guns does not specify where those guns must be maintained, so it could be argued that the guns could be kept in another location, again meaning not every home is required to have a gun.

I'll quote the section again: Municode Library

If someone conscientiously opposes maintaining firearms as a result of beliefs, they are exempt. That pretty means anyone can say they don't want a gun, and the law does not require them to have it, not even symbolically.

What is the context that changes what you said? What is the context that makes your quote "that each home have a gun in it" mean something different?

You can brag about your supposed legal credentials all you want. It doesn't change the text of the law.

I'm trying to find out the specifics of your beliefs and claims. I don't see how my motives come into play when you won't answer questions about those things. Whatever my motives, I can't learn about something you refuse to discuss.

The post where you brought up Kennesaw is #63 in this thread, to provide context.

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point

Even if it were more than symbolic, even if the police attempted to enforce the law, it would not apply to every home in Kennesaw.

^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun.

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example:

I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can.

I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious.

Many people fall for what they think laws say and the reputation dissuades a lot of would be street criminals from setting up shot in / around Kennesaw.

Be that as it may, Kennesaw's reputation illustrates, on a small scale, what I see as being indicative all across the nation.

Wow. Just wow.

Please, go look at your post #63. Then look at the very next post, which was by me, post #64. In post #63, you made the first reference to Kennesaw's gun law. This is what you said:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is all that you said about Kennesaw's gun law in that post.

In the very next post, in the post you got so upset about because I used multi-quote, I said this in response to your statement on Kennesaw:

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

How far do I want to go? I don't know. I'm wondering how long you will ignore the evidence which shows quite clearly that you are mistaken. I said that the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the post directly after you first mentioned it. I said that before you said anything about it being symbolic. It's not difficult to see. I've given you the post numbers, I've quoted the relevant portions of the posts, it's all right in front of you. I have no idea what it is that makes you incapable or unwilling to admit any mistake, but it's fascinating.

Do you deny that the only thing you said about Kennesaw in post #63 is what I quoted here? Do you deny that that was the first time you brought up Kennesaw in this thread? Do you deny that I said the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the very next post? I'm extremely curious how you rationalize arguing that you called the law symbolic before me, or how you rationalize your statement earlier that I "did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic," when I have done so multiple times. It's interesting and baffling.

Certainly mistaken beliefs about the Kennesaw law may have caused a decline in the crime rate. The city itself only claims that the burglary rate declined after the law passed on its website, but either way, potential criminals might have expected homes to have guns in them, even though the law was not enforced. If nothing else, that such a law passed would indicate that plenty of Kennesaw residents probably already had guns in their homes.

I don't know what you think Kennesaw's reputation indicates in relation to this thread. Is it just that gun ownership is a crime deterrent, or does it relate to the racial theme that the thread began with?

Really? I start ignoring what I said to you and you're STILL wanting to argue about Kennesaw?

"I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?"

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious. It is wholly irrelevant that you "agreed" with me when I made that statement. It was made as a preemptive move to discourage you from making the silly argument about what you think the Kennesaw law means.

The point that I made, since you didn't keep up, is that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. Unable to adapt, the standard is to use democracy to vote the whites out of power and replace it with socialism or worse. And so you choose to argue over this and YOU are the one that don't want to drop it. Maybe you've figured out that Google may get you in over your head this time.

I see. So you really are just going to ignore the objective evidence provided to you.

I gave you proof that you did not call Kennesaw's law symbolic before me. I called the law symbolic in my very first response to your statement about Kennesaw. That first statement did not say anything about the law being symbolic. In other words, I said the law is symbolic before you. It wasn't you "pointing it out first."

This isn't even about Kennesaw. This is about your total unwillingness to admit any sort of mistake, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. You have made quite a few mistaken statements about this, and refused to admit that any of them is an error, despite proof being provided to you. I'm wondering if you just really hate being wrong, or are trolling, or if you honestly cannot process information which would show that you made a mistake.

Now you've made a blanket statement that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. No non-whites? Really? So no blacks, hispanics, Asians, Native Indians, etc. have ever assimilated to US culture?

Vote the whites out of power? Have you checked the demographics of Congress? The Supreme Court? Have you paid attention to the races of our presidents? Perhaps you don't remember, but Obama being elected was considered a big deal, as he is the only president in the history of the country that wasn't a white man....and he was a half-white man!

You seem to be operating under a false belief. You say that whites are voted out of power and replaced with socialism. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but whites are just as capable of believing in socialism as members of any other race. Whites don't need to be voted out, just non-socialists replaced with socialists, in that scenario; race is unimportant.

I don't use Google, but regardless, I'm certainly not in over my head. Considering your blindness to facts when they are presented to you, you seem more like someone in over their head.

 

[Humorme]

.....

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States....

And de jure.

And you told that little white lie about being a teacher. de facto is an antonym for the word de jure. It can't be both - no more than someone can be a virgin whore.

You really don’t know what the terms mean, do you?

You must be standing in front of a mirror. Do you live in an echo chamber?

 

[Humorme]

You did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic. I did. Had I not done that, it was the only logical road you could take to attack me. That is your first misrepresentation.

Secondly, I said that Kennesaw is the safest city in Georgia. It's brought up in the Georgia legislature every year and it seems to be there claim to fame. So, I am not lying. If their criteria and yours are not in sync, that's your problem.

Who said a damn thing about my "legal" credentials? I work as an activist. I'm in the streets with the people who make the changes.

In simple terms, unlike your buddy, I've done more than post all day long on the Internet.

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?

You are absolutely right that the Kennesaw law was not meant to be an enforced law, but was making a point

Even if it were more than symbolic, even if the police attempted to enforce the law, it would not apply to every home in Kennesaw.

^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.

The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun.

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example:

I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can.

I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious.

Many people fall for what they think laws say and the reputation dissuades a lot of would be street criminals from setting up shot in / around Kennesaw.

Be that as it may, Kennesaw's reputation illustrates, on a small scale, what I see as being indicative all across the nation.

Wow. Just wow.

Please, go look at your post #63. Then look at the very next post, which was by me, post #64. In post #63, you made the first reference to Kennesaw's gun law. This is what you said:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is all that you said about Kennesaw's gun law in that post.

In the very next post, in the post you got so upset about because I used multi-quote, I said this in response to your statement on Kennesaw:

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

How far do I want to go? I don't know. I'm wondering how long you will ignore the evidence which shows quite clearly that you are mistaken. I said that the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the post directly after you first mentioned it. I said that before you said anything about it being symbolic. It's not difficult to see. I've given you the post numbers, I've quoted the relevant portions of the posts, it's all right in front of you. I have no idea what it is that makes you incapable or unwilling to admit any mistake, but it's fascinating.

Do you deny that the only thing you said about Kennesaw in post #63 is what I quoted here? Do you deny that that was the first time you brought up Kennesaw in this thread? Do you deny that I said the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the very next post? I'm extremely curious how you rationalize arguing that you called the law symbolic before me, or how you rationalize your statement earlier that I "did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic," when I have done so multiple times. It's interesting and baffling.

Certainly mistaken beliefs about the Kennesaw law may have caused a decline in the crime rate. The city itself only claims that the burglary rate declined after the law passed on its website, but either way, potential criminals might have expected homes to have guns in them, even though the law was not enforced. If nothing else, that such a law passed would indicate that plenty of Kennesaw residents probably already had guns in their homes.

I don't know what you think Kennesaw's reputation indicates in relation to this thread. Is it just that gun ownership is a crime deterrent, or does it relate to the racial theme that the thread began with?

Really? I start ignoring what I said to you and you're STILL wanting to argue about Kennesaw?

"I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?"

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious. It is wholly irrelevant that you "agreed" with me when I made that statement. It was made as a preemptive move to discourage you from making the silly argument about what you think the Kennesaw law means.

The point that I made, since you didn't keep up, is that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. Unable to adapt, the standard is to use democracy to vote the whites out of power and replace it with socialism or worse. And so you choose to argue over this and YOU are the one that don't want to drop it. Maybe you've figured out that Google may get you in over your head this time.

I see. So you really are just going to ignore the objective evidence provided to you.

I gave you proof that you did not call Kennesaw's law symbolic before me. I called the law symbolic in my very first response to your statement about Kennesaw. That first statement did not say anything about the law being symbolic. In other words, I said the law is symbolic before you. It wasn't you "pointing it out first."

This isn't even about Kennesaw. This is about your total unwillingness to admit any sort of mistake, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. You have made quite a few mistaken statements about this, and refused to admit that any of them is an error, despite proof being provided to you. I'm wondering if you just really hate being wrong, or are trolling, or if you honestly cannot process information which would show that you made a mistake.

Now you've made a blanket statement that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. No non-whites? Really? So no blacks, hispanics, Asians, Native Indians, etc. have ever assimilated to US culture?

Vote the whites out of power? Have you checked the demographics of Congress? The Supreme Court? Have you paid attention to the races of our presidents? Perhaps you don't remember, but Obama being elected was considered a big deal, as he is the only president in the history of the country that wasn't a white man....and he was a half-white man!

You seem to be operating under a false belief. You say that whites are voted out of power and replaced with socialism. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but whites are just as capable of believing in socialism as members of any other race. Whites don't need to be voted out, just non-socialists replaced with socialists, in that scenario; race is unimportant.

I don't use Google, but regardless, I'm certainly not in over my head. Considering your blindness to facts when they are presented to you, you seem more like someone in over their head.

What can I say? You're a legend in your own mind, answering issues before making an inquiry into what the subject is about. You make presumptions based upon pieces of the puzzle and want to have an argument, not a discussion. Your best amounts to strawman arguments.

I would argue with idiots, but someone taught me not to. When I argue with idiots, they drag me down to their level and beat me with experience. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and you are not smart enough to be in any serious debate. So, hang out with the 70,000 posts Unk and wallow in your holier than thou false superiority.

 

[Montrovant]

I have, on multiple occasions, admitted that the Kennesaw law is symbolic. Have you not been reading the posts you are replying to?
^^ Note in this quote I say "even if" the law were more than symbolic, indicating that it is only symbolic.
^^ This quote is from my very first response to you about the Kennesaw law.

Now, I'm not calling you a liar, but you are clearly and objectively mistaken in saying that I did not admit the Kennesaw law is symbolic. I did, in fact, state that before you did, as can be seen by simply looking at the relevant posts. You made your statement about the Kennesaw law, and in the very next post, I mentioned that the law is symbolic. Those are posts #63-64, if you would like to check for yourself.

I did not say that you are lying about Kennesaw being the safest city in Georgia. In fact, although I posted a link which showed it as fourth safest place to live in Georgia, I also said it was the one thing about Kennesaw you said that might not be untrue. I also later said that whether it is the safest or not depends on what criteria are used. This is all easily found in this thread.

Credentials was a bad word to use. I was talking about you making multiple statements about time spent in court, and never losing a case, for example: I don't believe that I have once called you a liar. You, on the other hand, have called me a liar. It's odd that you are the one who keeps bringing up being called a liar, then.

I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious.

Many people fall for what they think laws say and the reputation dissuades a lot of would be street criminals from setting up shot in / around Kennesaw.

Be that as it may, Kennesaw's reputation illustrates, on a small scale, what I see as being indicative all across the nation.

Wow. Just wow.

Please, go look at your post #63. Then look at the very next post, which was by me, post #64. In post #63, you made the first reference to Kennesaw's gun law. This is what you said:

By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.

That is all that you said about Kennesaw's gun law in that post.

In the very next post, in the post you got so upset about because I used multi-quote, I said this in response to your statement on Kennesaw:

That law is symbolic. It is not enforced.

How far do I want to go? I don't know. I'm wondering how long you will ignore the evidence which shows quite clearly that you are mistaken. I said that the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the post directly after you first mentioned it. I said that before you said anything about it being symbolic. It's not difficult to see. I've given you the post numbers, I've quoted the relevant portions of the posts, it's all right in front of you. I have no idea what it is that makes you incapable or unwilling to admit any mistake, but it's fascinating.

Do you deny that the only thing you said about Kennesaw in post #63 is what I quoted here? Do you deny that that was the first time you brought up Kennesaw in this thread? Do you deny that I said the Kennesaw law is symbolic in the very next post? I'm extremely curious how you rationalize arguing that you called the law symbolic before me, or how you rationalize your statement earlier that I "did not admit that the Kennesaw was symbolic," when I have done so multiple times. It's interesting and baffling.

Certainly mistaken beliefs about the Kennesaw law may have caused a decline in the crime rate. The city itself only claims that the burglary rate declined after the law passed on its website, but either way, potential criminals might have expected homes to have guns in them, even though the law was not enforced. If nothing else, that such a law passed would indicate that plenty of Kennesaw residents probably already had guns in their homes.

I don't know what you think Kennesaw's reputation indicates in relation to this thread. Is it just that gun ownership is a crime deterrent, or does it relate to the racial theme that the thread began with?

Really? I start ignoring what I said to you and you're STILL wanting to argue about Kennesaw?

"I don't know how far you want to go with this. I said the law was symbolic first. So, why did I say that?"

Had I not pointed it out first, YOU would have jumped on that to make a big dramatic case pointing out the obvious. It is wholly irrelevant that you "agreed" with me when I made that statement. It was made as a preemptive move to discourage you from making the silly argument about what you think the Kennesaw law means.

The point that I made, since you didn't keep up, is that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. Unable to adapt, the standard is to use democracy to vote the whites out of power and replace it with socialism or worse. And so you choose to argue over this and YOU are the one that don't want to drop it. Maybe you've figured out that Google may get you in over your head this time.

I see. So you really are just going to ignore the objective evidence provided to you.

I gave you proof that you did not call Kennesaw's law symbolic before me. I called the law symbolic in my very first response to your statement about Kennesaw. That first statement did not say anything about the law being symbolic. In other words, I said the law is symbolic before you. It wasn't you "pointing it out first."

This isn't even about Kennesaw. This is about your total unwillingness to admit any sort of mistake, even in the face of irrefutable evidence to the contrary. You have made quite a few mistaken statements about this, and refused to admit that any of them is an error, despite proof being provided to you. I'm wondering if you just really hate being wrong, or are trolling, or if you honestly cannot process information which would show that you made a mistake.

Now you've made a blanket statement that non-whites cannot assimilate to the prevailing culture. No non-whites? Really? So no blacks, hispanics, Asians, Native Indians, etc. have ever assimilated to US culture?

Vote the whites out of power? Have you checked the demographics of Congress? The Supreme Court? Have you paid attention to the races of our presidents? Perhaps you don't remember, but Obama being elected was considered a big deal, as he is the only president in the history of the country that wasn't a white man....and he was a half-white man!

You seem to be operating under a false belief. You say that whites are voted out of power and replaced with socialism. I hate to be the one to break it to you, but whites are just as capable of believing in socialism as members of any other race. Whites don't need to be voted out, just non-socialists replaced with socialists, in that scenario; race is unimportant.

I don't use Google, but regardless, I'm certainly not in over my head. Considering your blindness to facts when they are presented to you, you seem more like someone in over their head.

What can I say? You're a legend in your own mind, answering issues before making an inquiry into what the subject is about. You make presumptions based upon pieces of the puzzle and want to have an argument, not a discussion. Your best amounts to strawman arguments.

I would argue with idiots, but someone taught me not to. When I argue with idiots, they drag me down to their level and beat me with experience. You don't have a clue as to what you're talking about and you are not smart enough to be in any serious debate. So, hang out with the 70,000 posts Unk and wallow in your holier than thou false superiority.

So still, not an "oops," nor a "my bad," nor even "I was mistaken, but it is not important." You continue to refuse to admit to what amounts to small errors, even in the face of clear evidence. You also continue to try to make the discussion about my lack of intelligence, or experience, etc. You don't want to answer questions about your claims, and contrary opinions seem to just make you upset.

But if you want to flee the conversation, that's entirely up to you.

 

[Unkotare]

.....

The 14th Amendment is de facto law in the United States....

And de jure.

And you told that little white lie about being a teacher. de facto is an antonym for the word de jure. It can't be both - no more than someone can be a virgin whore.

You really don’t know what the terms mean, do you?

You must be standing in front of a mirror. Do you live in an echo chamber?

What do you mean?

 

[Flopper]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

It's not about being disliked. It's about discrimination, having a door slammed in your face because you are one of "those" people, having cops routinely stop you because you just look suspicious, seeing a job you want go to a less qualified person because you aren't the kind of person they need, having a store clerk show you the cheap merchandise because you people just can't afford the good stuff. People of color are not seeking to be collectively "liked" by white people. They just don't want to be treated as a second class citizen because of their skin color.

 

[Humorme]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

It's not about being disliked. It's about discrimination, having a door slammed in your face because you are one of "those" people, having cops routinely stop you because you just look suspicious, seeing a job you want go to a less qualified person because you aren't the kind of person they need, having a store clerk show you the cheap merchandise because you people just can't afford the good stuff. People of color are not seeking to be collectively "liked" by white people. They just don't want to be treated as a second class citizen because of their skin color.

It works both ways.

 

[Unkotare]

Well, Blacks weren't citizens until after the Civil War, and Native Americans weren't citizens until the early 20th century.

It cannot disputed by any honest person researching our country's history: America was intended to be for the preservation, defense, and advancement of the whites.

Only in America, of every nation in the world, is that presented as a bad / evil thing. Consequently, the response is going to be to disenfranchise the whites at every level and punish the posterity of the founding fathers while destroying the Republic our forefathers established here.

Paranoid, ignorant nonsense.

You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. .....

No serious discussion begins with "It cannot disputed by any honest person..."

Some facts are indisputable. .....?

Typical liberal approach to non-discussion.

 

[mudwhistle]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

I'm so rich and good looking. I know all of peasants simply adore me.


However, I'd never run for office because all of the ugly people are just jealous of my intelligence and my sparkling personality.

And they're just envious of my White Privilege.

 

[Humorme]

It cannot disputed by any honest person researching our country's history: America was intended to be for the preservation, defense, and advancement of the whites.

Only in America, of every nation in the world, is that presented as a bad / evil thing. Consequently, the response is going to be to disenfranchise the whites at every level and punish the posterity of the founding fathers while destroying the Republic our forefathers established here.

Paranoid, ignorant nonsense.

You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. .....

No serious discussion begins with "It cannot disputed by any honest person..."

Some facts are indisputable. .....?

Typical liberal approach to non-discussion.

Nonsensical, uneducated posting done in spite. You're a dumb ass whose avatar is the stereotypical liberal. Frankly I've never voted for nor supported a liberal in my life. Been hated because of my race often, however.

 

[Flopper]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

It's not about being disliked. It's about discrimination, having a door slammed in your face because you are one of "those" people, having cops routinely stop you because you just look suspicious, seeing a job you want go to a less qualified person because you aren't the kind of person they need, having a store clerk show you the cheap merchandise because you people just can't afford the good stuff. People of color are not seeking to be collectively "liked" by white people. They just don't want to be treated as a second class citizen because of their skin color.

It works both ways.

Anyone who thinks our society considers them a second class citizens because they are white is just plain nuts.

 

[Humorme]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

It's not about being disliked. It's about discrimination, having a door slammed in your face because you are one of "those" people, having cops routinely stop you because you just look suspicious, seeing a job you want go to a less qualified person because you aren't the kind of person they need, having a store clerk show you the cheap merchandise because you people just can't afford the good stuff. People of color are not seeking to be collectively "liked" by white people. They just don't want to be treated as a second class citizen because of their skin color.

It works both ways.

Anyone who thinks our society considers them a second class citizens because they are white is just plain nuts.

Anyone who denies it is plain foolish.

 

[Taz]

that is just simply too bad. And let me show why this is the case.

All of us...every single of one us, with no exceptions - are disliked by somebody else out there becaue of our race. Perhaps even hated. It's just human nature.

If you are:
white - somebody dislikes you because of that
black - somebody dislikes you because of that
jewish - somebody dislikes you because of that
asian - somebody dislikes you because of that
mexican - somebody dislikes you because of that

You are not loved by the whole country let alone the whole world, and that is not an expectation you can have! You simply cannot go around with the attitude, love me, love me, love me.

There are lots and lots of people out there who don't like you, and never will. There is nothing you can do, there is nothing they can do. It is inborn, and nurtured as well. It cannot be changed.

It's not about being disliked. It's about discrimination, having a door slammed in your face because you are one of "those" people, having cops routinely stop you because you just look suspicious, seeing a job you want go to a less qualified person because you aren't the kind of person they need, having a store clerk show you the cheap merchandise because you people just can't afford the good stuff. People of color are not seeking to be collectively "liked" by white people. They just don't want to be treated as a second class citizen because of their skin color.

It works both ways.

Anyone who thinks our society considers them a second class citizens because they are white is just plain nuts.

If you admit that you look suspicious, then you should EXPECT to be stopped often. And rightly so.

 

[Unkotare]

Paranoid, ignorant nonsense.

You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. .....

No serious discussion begins with "It cannot disputed by any honest person..."

Some facts are indisputable. .....?

Typical liberal approach to non-discussion.

Nonsensical, uneducated posting done in spite. ....

The truth isn’t the truth just to spite you.

 

[Unkotare]

Paranoid, ignorant nonsense.

You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. .....

No serious discussion begins with "It cannot disputed by any honest person..."

Some facts are indisputable. .....?

Typical liberal approach to non-discussion.

...whose avatar is the stereotypical liberal. ....

That makes no sense.

 

[Unkotare]

Paranoid, ignorant nonsense.

You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. .....

No serious discussion begins with "It cannot disputed by any honest person..."

Some facts are indisputable. .....?

Typical liberal approach to non-discussion.

.... Been hated because of my race often, however.

You liberals love to play the victim card.