The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....

[Grumblenuts]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Collective bargaining.

 

[katsteve2012]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?

www.adl.org

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".

*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.

Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.

So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.

Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".


*If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.

 

[Correll]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Collective bargaining.

Is an useful tool against employers. Not against the power of the State, especially when combined with the type of social mob and political correctness tactics of the Left.


Your point in lying about white interest only being "white supremacy" is so that whites cannot defend their interests against this discrimination and oppression,

and end up having to "defer to the black guy" which is what you want, because you are an anti-white racist.

 

[Correll]

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?

www.adl.org

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".

If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.

[/QUOTE]
*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.[/QUOTE]

Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.

Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.

Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?

So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.

I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.

Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".

Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.

*If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?

Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.


And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.

When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.

Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.

Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.

THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.

It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.


Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.


A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.


But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.


THey lied to you. They set you up.


You going to take that, and keep playing along?

 

[Grumblenuts]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Collective bargaining.

Is an useful tool against employers. Not against the power of the State, especially when combined with the type of social mob and political correctness tactics of the Left.


Your point in lying about white interest only being "white supremacy" is so that whites cannot defend their interests against this discrimination and oppression,

and end up having to "defer to the black guy" which is what you want, because you are an anti-white racist.

I'm someone who's comfortable in their skin. You, on the other hand, are irrationally defensive about yours. We're all just people, dopey. Sharing the same boat. Like it or not. Might as well be generous and considerate as possible. Cryin' won't help ya.

 

[Correll]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Collective bargaining

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Collective bargaining.

Is an useful tool against employers. Not against the power of the State, especially when combined with the type of social mob and political correctness tactics of the Left.


Your point in lying about white interest only being "white supremacy" is so that whites cannot defend their interests against this discrimination and oppression,

and end up having to "defer to the black guy" which is what you want, because you are an anti-white racist.

I'm someone who's comfortable in their skin. You, on the other hand, are irrationally defensive about yours. We're all just people, dopey. Sharing the same boat. Like it or not. Might as well be generous and considerate as possible. Cryin' won't help ya.

You have attacked me for even using the word "white" to discuss "white people" as a group.


Being "defensive" when attacked, is not "irrational".


Claiming it is, just just "gaslighting". YOu are an asshole.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You have attacked me for even using the word "white" to discuss "white people" as a group.

Lying to yourself won't help ya either.
"white issues", dope.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (Divided by Faith, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality). Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites. As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)

Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations. But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist. For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi. A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot. Anything short of that is given a pass. Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people.. They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.

Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.

1. The playing field is level.
2. But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
3. Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.

Everything else flows from there.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..

 

[Correll]

You have attacked me for even using the word "white" to discuss "white people" as a group.

Lying to yourself won't help ya either.
"white issues", dope.

Yep. And you are hostile to them to the point that you deny that we have them.


You are an insanely racist person.

 

[Correll]

Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (Divided by Faith, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality). Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites. As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)

Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations. But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist. For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi. A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot. Anything short of that is given a pass. Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people.. They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.

Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.

1. The playing field is level.
2. But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
3. Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.

Everything else flows from there.

ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.

 

[Correll]

Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..

Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.

Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.

 

[katsteve2012]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?

www.adl.org

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".

If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.

*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.[/QUOTE]

Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.

Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.

Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?

So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.

I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.

Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".

Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.

*If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?

Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.


And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.

When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.

Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.

Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.

THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.

It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.


Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.


A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.


But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.


THey lied to you. They set you up.


You going to take that, and keep playing along?
[/QUOTE]

Who are "they"?

Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?

How did "they" "set me up"?

From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.

I am in control of what I "hear and believe".

No one else is.

Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?

As far as what you BELIEVE that "YOU and the president think", what makes you so certain that you don't listen to him with a totally partisan filter, and therefore, believe all that he says, no matter how unusual it may appear to be.

Even if there is a remote possibility that your partisan listening filter just may prove you to be biased in his favor.

By your own admission, you are a partisan, right leaning "follower".

Do you have ANY opinions of your own that are not politically motivated?

Or does your party loyalty supercede your objectivity?

 

[Correll]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?

www.adl.org

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".

If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.

*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.

Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.

Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.

Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?

So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.

I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.

Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".

Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.

*If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?

Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.


And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.

When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.

Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.

Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.

THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.

It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.


Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.


A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.


But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.


THey lied to you. They set you up.


You going to take that, and keep playing along?
[/QUOTE]

Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?

How did "they" "set me up"?

From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.

I am in control of what I "hear and believe".

No one else is.

Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
[/QUOTE]




1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".

2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.

3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.

 

[katsteve2012]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?

www.adl.org

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".

If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.

*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.

Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.

Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.

Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?

So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.

I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.

Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".

Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.

*If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?

Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.


And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.

When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.

Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.

Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.

THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.

It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.


Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.


A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.


But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.


THey lied to you. They set you up.


You going to take that, and keep playing along?

Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?

How did "they" "set me up"?

From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.

I am in control of what I "hear and believe".

No one else is.

Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
[/QUOTE]




1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".

2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.

3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
[/QUOTE]


Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?

Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?

That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.

Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".

You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.

 

[Correll]

O'Reilly?

The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.

And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.

Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected

Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.

It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.

There was no one there on the right but racists.

⁸

Wow! I had not seen all of that before..

Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.

So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?

How so?

None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?

Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?

www.adl.org

Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.

Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.

No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".

If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.

*First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.

Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.

Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.

Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?

So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.

I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.

Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".

Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.

*If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?

Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.


And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.

When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.

Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.

Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.

THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.

It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.


Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people. I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.


A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.


But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.


THey lied to you. They set you up.


You going to take that, and keep playing along?

Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?

How did "they" "set me up"?

From my POV, no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.

I am in control of what I "hear and believe".

No one else is.

Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?

1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".

2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.

3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
[/QUOTE]


Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?

Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?

That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.

Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".

You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
[/QUOTE]




The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.


ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you. THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.


"Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?



Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..

Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.

Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.

It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (Divided by Faith, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality). Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites. As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)

Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations. But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist. For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi. A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot. Anything short of that is given a pass. Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people.. They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.

Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.

1. The playing field is level.
2. But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
3. Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.

Everything else flows from there.

ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.

Now all know who you are. Fine admission.

 

[Grumblenuts]

anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.

There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?

Why don't you stop cutting my posts down to nothing, to avoid my arguments, like the coward you are, *****?

Here's a clue or two for ya, sparky. Here, for example, I'm provided two simple options. Neither involving cutting or pasting. I can simply hit the big blue "Reply" button and quote everything (which I obviously did in this instance) -or- I can highlight just the content I intend to address (which would have obviously been the more appropriate choice in this instance) and "Reply" to that. When I choose the latter it's because I don't want my comments misconstrued as necessarily applicable to anything beyond what I've quoted. It's called being considerate, especially to the reader. Dumbass.

 

[Correll]

Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..

Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.

Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.

It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?

It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.


No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.

I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.