And it only took you two replies to the same post to comprehend. Congrats!
False, my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual. You dont even disagree with it you just want names or something to believe what you already do not disagree with.
LOL!!! Oh yeah, redlining, steering, housing discrimination and all that stuff is just a figment of my imagination! I'm seeing a pattern of denying reality and just screaming "not true"
Thanks but your entire post is summed up in emotions.
You didnt point out any lie I told, all you did was scream liar and run.
You didnt disagree with anything I said, all you did was scream "liberal" and thought that was a point.
Then after not being able to point out any lie, falsehood, etc etc you turn to your last ditch effort of asking me about how many books I've read.
I feel good about that because you didnt have one come back that made sense
1. "...my post is believable because people being not allowed to learn to read is real and factual."
But we're speaking of modern history.
Living people.
You're refusing to learn to read is purely voluntary.
Sorry, you're the one that brought up slavery. Now you want to dial it back because once again, I was right and you have nothing.
2. "all you did was scream liar and run."
Run?
Whose post is this?
3. And speaking of running (and hiding) where is your explanation for the lack of educational materials in black households?
That would be the study I provided in post #17....
Here is the amazing consequence of half a century of indoctrination:
Yes you just screamed liar and now you're switching the subject to black what black homes do.
Overall, white homes had 2.5 times as many books as black homes.
But the most surprising finding is that the top quintile of black homes reported having fewer books (69) than the bottom quintile of white homes (71).
Report Negligent Parenting Hurts Black Students Performance
"When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left I buy food and clothes."
Erasmus
And yes.....I blame Liberal indoctrination.
Yeah, of course you blame liberals. But you seemed to abandon your stance and now going on a rant about books. Quoting Erasmus and talking about slavery....then saying I cant bring up history because you said so.
You keep pretending that I have backtracked or given up on anything.
Of course, I haven't.
"...then saying I cant bring up history because you said so."
I did no such thing.
I simply pointed out that it is bogus to claim modern households lack the desire for education because somewhere, way back in history, reading was forbidden.
The one thing has nothing.....nothing.....to do with the other.
Your arguments and attitude are jejune to say the least.
I think we got it. Black people don't like to read.
Now, a question for you, as our Korean-"American" representative:
Here's an interesting fact about Liberals.
They use terms that have no meaning unless they can assign a pejorative one.
Case in point.....let's teach you some related history:
1. Orwell wrote in
1984, "One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes a revolution in order
to establish the dictatorship."The first Communist state had arrived."
Lenin and the First Communist Revolutions IV
a. "The actual insurrection--the Bolshevik Revolution--began on the morning of November 6 (October 24) 1917, when Kerensky ordered the Bolshevik press closed."
The Russian Revolution and the Soviet Union Union
b. The US Constitution forbids 'ex post facto' laws....and Roosevelt told the American public that Russia fought for the same things as America.....
In November/December, the penal system was re-written to include
"enemy of the people."
...and, ex-post facto, the Bolsheviks arrested and exterminated all those 'enemies of the people.'
"The
Soviet Union made extensive use of the term (
Russian language:
враг народа,
"vrag naroda"), as it fitted well with the idea that the people were in control. The term was used by
Vladimir Lenin after coming to power, as early as in the decree of 28 November 1917:
"all leaders of the Constitutional Democratic Party, a party filled with enemies of the people, are hereby to be considered outlaws, and are to be arrested immediately and brought before the revolutionary court." Nicolas Werth, Karel Bartošek, Jean-Louis Panné, Jean-Louis Margolin, Andrzej Paczkowski,
Stéphane Courtois, "
The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression"
See how the phrase 'enemy of the people' was used?
2. You fools....I mean Liberals, created the usage
'racist' for the same purpose.
It has no meaning unless you want to criminalize any thoughts you disagree with.
You do, don't you.
3. Clearly, the example of the idiotic photo you provided, you mean that admitting that there are different races is some sort of no-no.
Why?
No one is fired, deprived of liberty or livelihood by that example.
And this: "Remember that movie where two black guys dress up like white women but get busted cause they have short tempers and love rap music..."
BLACK FACE contempo - Encyclopedia Dramatica
4. How about this imitation......'racist'?
5. So....how about articulating your definition of "racist" and we'll see if you subscribe to 'thought crimes.'
Careful.....I already know you're a fascist at heart.
".... thoughtcrime is the criminal act of holding unspoken beliefs or doubts that oppose or question the ruling party. In the book, the government attempts to control not only the speech and actions, but also the
thoughts of its subjects. To entertain unacceptable thoughts is known as
crimethink in
Newspeak, the ideologically purified dialect of the party."
George Orwell,
1984