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

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

 

[Correll]

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

"All people" and you cry "white interests"?


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.

Agreed. What are "black interests"?

If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?

You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.

Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....

However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?

Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??

However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....

In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".

I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.

OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
"all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!

Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.

Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.

That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.

I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.

Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..

Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."


and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"


Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?

Now the other one again..

This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.


I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.


Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.

Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..

Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.


You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.


But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .

Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..

I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.

Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.

Much better. Left leg..

No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.

LOL

What debate did he lose??

Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.

We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.


And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.



YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.

LOLOLOL

What you call "nothing but childish fantasy" is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.

And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.


We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.


I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.


You lose, loser.

No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.

But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.

The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.


You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.

LOL

Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a "ginned up media scandal" where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.

Ginned up because Cain was Republican while black. If he were a Democrat they would be Blessed Protectors of "white interests."

Every primary has become a mud slighting fest. To point at ONE example of it, and go, that is because the guy that got his with that particular bit of mud, is BLACK,


is one of the stupidest examples of libs making unsupported and unsupportable accusation of Evul Wacism,


I have ever seen.


AND, it is worth point out, most of the ginning came from the MEDIA, who are not the topic of the thread, anywho.

 

[Correll]

I'll put it this way. Say an entire football team challenged (forced actually) a couple chess players to "play" a game of football. One of the chess players complains "Hey,we can't play without pads, helmets, and all that shit you've got on!" Now, yes, they obviously have a right to that equal protection, but it's their right to free speech that enables them to voice those interests in the first place. That must be protected first and foremost,.. i.e. "defer"red to.. "to violate would be oppression."

IN that example I would side with the chess players, both in their right to speech and to have "equal protection".


Your stated position is to defer to whoever the black guys are, and indeed, that the white guys, don't even have an interest in having the pads, because how can a group have an interest?


Looking at that, some one who just got here, would think that I was strawmaning you.


BUt, I'm not. THat is your stated position(s).

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."

Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.

Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.

Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.

That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.


And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?


If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.


THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.


AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.

Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.

It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.

You look at the world and all you see is black & white.

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'll put it this way. Say an entire football team challenged (forced actually) a couple chess players to "play" a game of football. One of the chess players complains "Hey,we can't play without pads, helmets, and all that shit you've got on!" Now, yes, they obviously have a right to that equal protection, but it's their right to free speech that enables them to voice those interests in the first place. That must be protected first and foremost,.. i.e. "defer"red to.. "to violate would be oppression."

IN that example I would side with the chess players, both in their right to speech and to have "equal protection".


Your stated position is to defer to whoever the black guys are, and indeed, that the white guys, don't even have an interest in having the pads, because how can a group have an interest?


Looking at that, some one who just got here, would think that I was strawmaning you.


BUt, I'm not. THat is your stated position(s).

Of course it's a strawman. The only tool in your chest. Where have I suggested white football players don't want pads? All (Americans) would clearly want protective pads while footing balls, either voluntarily or by force. The majority football players not only have them already, they're intent upon using that advantage to aid in their oppression of the minority chess players.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given. Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away. It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means. We "white people" comprise the majority in terms of numbers, power, and wealth. In such cases majorities will oppress all existing minorities to varying degrees. This isn't only predictable, it's unavoidable fact, and no inherent function of skin color or political party.

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own interests at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

So, given the fact that Republicans have thus far proven unable to nominate a black Presidential candidate, and that this is not due to any inherent disability, what have you been waiting for?

 

[Grumblenuts]

To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.

Whites already "work together" here by default whether locally or as a whole. Like it or not, we "rule." Only those not ruling have to "organize" in order to be treated fairly, i.e. play on the same level.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."

Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.

Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.

Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.

That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.


And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?


If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.


THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.


AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.

Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.

It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.

You look at the world and all you see is black & white.

When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.


Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.

The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest, pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.


So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.

In this example it is. There is a conflict between what the whites in the area, as as group want, and the indians in the area, as a group want.


You are the one twisted into a logic pretzel by your refusal to see something simple and easy.

 

[Correll]

I'll put it this way. Say an entire football team challenged (forced actually) a couple chess players to "play" a game of football. One of the chess players complains "Hey,we can't play without pads, helmets, and all that shit you've got on!" Now, yes, they obviously have a right to that equal protection, but it's their right to free speech that enables them to voice those interests in the first place. That must be protected first and foremost,.. i.e. "defer"red to.. "to violate would be oppression."

IN that example I would side with the chess players, both in their right to speech and to have "equal protection".


Your stated position is to defer to whoever the black guys are, and indeed, that the white guys, don't even have an interest in having the pads, because how can a group have an interest?


Looking at that, some one who just got here, would think that I was strawmaning you.


BUt, I'm not. THat is your stated position(s).

Of course it's a strawman. The only tool in your chest. Where have I suggested white football players don't want pads? All (Americans) would clearly want protective pads while footing balls, either voluntarily or by force. The majority football players not only have them already, they're intent upon using that advantage to aid in their oppression of the minority chess players.

When you argued the whites can't have an interests, because they are the majority.


It is an interest to want to have pads too.


You are not making a lot of sense, and I think we both know why.

 

[Correll]

Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.

No, it's not.

Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.

You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.

It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.

No, it is not.

We "white people" comprise the majority in terms of numbers, power, and wealth. In such cases majorities will oppress all existing minorities to varying degrees. This isn't only predictable, it's unavoidable fact, and no inherent function of skin color or political party.

No it is not. That is insane. It ignores so much in human history. Our nation is founded on the concept of individual rights, to be protected from the will of the majority.


That you need to have this explained is literally insane of you.

The tyranny of the majority (or tyranny of the masses) is an inherent weakness to majority rule in which the majority of an electorate pursues exclusively its own interests at the expense of those in the minority. This results in oppression of minority groups comparable to that of a tyrant or despot, argued John Stuart Mill in his 1859 book On Liberty.

Which is why America is not a pure democracy and has vast institutions set up to preserve individual rights in the face of a the will of the majority.

You should have learned this as a child in school. How old are you? This is 4th grade shit.

So, given the fact that Republicans have thus far proven unable to nominate a black Presidential candidate, and that this is not due to any inherent disability, what have you been waiting for?

For one to win the primary fight. D'uh.

 

[katsteve2012]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

 

[Correll]

To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.

Whites already "work together" here by default whether locally or as a whole. Like it or not, we "rule." Only those not ruling have to "organize" in order to be treated fairly, i.e. play on the same level.

That makes so little sense it is hard to address.

1. Simply being the majority, does not mean you are working together to represent your group interests. If as a group, you don't have a sense of group identity, you will not work together. FOr example you, you don't really feel any loyalty to Whites as a group, and indeed, are ready to defer to any black.


2. We do not rule. We do not operate as a group, working together for our group interests. Our political structure is set up along partisan lines, not as a racial group. Our potential power is split and always working against each other. Your denial of this fact is delusional.


3. So, only those who are "not ruling" or "not the majority" have to "organize" to "be treated fairly"? And that is what this is about. You trying to justify your support of minority groups organizing and pursuing minority interests while you cry Evul Wacism, is any white person wants to do that same.


YOu have different rules for different people based on their RACE. That is LITERAL RACISM.


As opposed to the Evul Wacism, you like to pretend that I have.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.

No, it's not.

Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.

You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.

It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.

No, it is not.

Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".

Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.

Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
I certainly would.

But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.


At least that's the case in my state. When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.

1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.

2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.

3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.

 

[Correll]

Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.

No, it's not.

Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.

You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.

It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.

No, it is not.

Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.

Sure. If you cut the explanations, I guess you can pretend that.

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."

Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.

Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.

Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.

That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.


And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?


If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.


THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.


AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.

Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.

It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.

You look at the world and all you see is black & white.

When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.


Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.

The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest, pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.


So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?

"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."

Fuck you, ya fucking racist.

You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos. So there's no such group. Like I said, I go to the one in Hollywood and there are plenty of white folks.

And again... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't. Some Middle Easterners want them, some don't.

There is no one group that is for them or against them.

And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.



And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general, are smarter than you. They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.

That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.

If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.

 

[Faun]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.

But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.

I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.

Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.

The few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time by comparison to what is in Vegas.

...

Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.


To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.

Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.


To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.


That is what Grumble really can't deal with. The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?

lol!!!


And, he can't see how racist his position is.

And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.

In this example it is. There is a conflict between what the whites in the area, as as group want, and the indians in the area, as a group want.


You are the one twisted into a logic pretzel by your refusal to see something simple and easy.

Fucking racist, there's no such "white interest" because there are also whites in areas where casinos exist who want the casinos.

 

[Correll]

Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?

Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.

A conflict in interests does not require that.


American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.

They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.


Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.

So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?

I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.

This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.



YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.


Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.

"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."

Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.

Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.

Point being, it's not against whites. You only think it is because you're a fucking raging racist.

That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.


And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?


If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.


THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.


AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.

Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't. Some blacks want them, some don't. Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.

It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.

You look at the world and all you see is black & white.

When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.


Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.

The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest, pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.


So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?

"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."

Fuck you, ya fucking racist.

Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.

You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....

The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.

Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.

And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.

"WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.

And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general, are smarter than you. They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.

Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist". BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.

And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.

That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.

If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.

1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.

2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.