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

[IM2]

The use of the words white racists describe a part of the white culture that practices racism. It does not implicate or blame the entire white race for practicing racist BEHAVIOR. The racists among whites are the only ones who get butthurt when talking about the racism that has been practiced by whites. The racists are the only ones who whine about how a person talking only about the whites practicing racism are talking about all whites or judging people by their color. Whites who practice racism are judged by their behavior, not by their skin color.

This history of America shows us cases where whites were provided preferences while others have been excluded. Specifically white males. That is not judging people based on race, that is reporting historical fact. These are things whites have done and it shows a record of BEHAVIOR practiced by whites. Regardless of whether the whining racists around here like it or not, laws and policies were and continue to be enacted that have benefitted whites. All whites. However there are whites who see how wrong these things have been and continue to fight against this. The racist whites condemn them claiming the are kissing black folks asses or are scared to speak some kind of politically incorrect truth.

Seems that the only people scared to listen to "politically incorrect truths" are racist whites like Correlll, ghostrider, daveman and the majority of the white members of USMB.

 

[daveman]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.

"Hello, Central Casting? I have a part for a guy. 'Angry Black Man'. Yes, the angrier, the better....Right. Lots of calling people racist, lots of arrogance, lots of 'bowing up', as the kids say...You have a guy? Awesome! Have his agent call him!"

Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.

If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens. So you just keep running because you can't discuss what has gone on since slavery ended because it crushed that little lie whites like you have made up. I beat your ass, and you know it. I Beat Correll long ago. He's a joke, a whiny snot nose joke, now you have joined the Correll the clown club.

If you have to tell people you won...you didn't. I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself, though.

 

[daveman]

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.

LOL

Your delusions are not reality.

Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.

Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.

You're fucking deranged.

More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.

He can't help himself. Cognitive dissonance has set in. He calls himself challenging the black man as the great savior of the racist right. The fearless hero who will not bow to the black man like his imaginary liberals do. He ain't scurred to tell the black man about himself, yet he cannot discuss a court case that shows how the government helped whites practice racism because he knows that by discussing this case, he will be shown how whites have benefitted from racism just as I have said and that will kill his crying about my racism.

Good Gaea, kid, lose your victimhood fetish. It's pathetic.

 

[daveman]

If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens.

That sums up this topic neatly, and many others I've seen. Just trying to picture all these put upon "white people" clutching their pearls while pounding out this daily stream of insufferable dreck... Yuck!! Makes perfect sense to be a proud, surviving, marginalized minority. Hard finding much to celebrate about identifying as a member of a neck crushing majority.

You and IM get a room. Sheesh.

 

[daveman]

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.

LOL

Your delusions are not reality.

Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.

Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.

You're fucking deranged.

More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.

Ummm, Biden said he was going to appoint Beta to run gun policy.

You know, Beta, the guy who said he was going to take away people's ARs?

Meanwhile, in the reality you pretend doesn't exist:

Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment

Repeal the Second Amendment -- That's the New York Times, by the way.

Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

Repealing the Second Amendment isn't easy but it's what March for Our Lives students need

Repeal the Second Amendment

You can screech NUH UH!! all you want, but it's pointless.

Dumbfuck, banning AR's doesn't repeal the Second Amendment. You morons are dumber than shit.

Oh, you stupid piece of shit. I showed you how the majority of Democrats want to repeal the Second, but you focus on one weapon.

Fuckhead.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You seem to be jumping all over the place.

No, just following you.

So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.

That's what I said!

Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?

After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.

Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?

Sure, why not?

 

[IM2]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

 

[daveman]

Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.

Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.

It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.

No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.

I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.

But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.

You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.

That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.

We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.

You are an extremely small and petty individual.

You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.

Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.

What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.

I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?

Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.

IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.

It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.

That is some childish, petty bullshit.

I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"

Wow. Okay, you get a checkmark in the "hates it when his hypocrisy is pointed out" column.

Meanwhile, the left can't exist without their double standards. Period. End of story. More whining about it changes nothing, so don't even bother.

So, here we have yet another moralizing hypocrite attempting to police this forum and assign political labels to complete strangers who were minding their own business.

You are not a moderator, therefore your silly attempt to direct who I criticize in your behalf is laughed at and dismissed.

Now get lost.

Man, you leftists really hate it when your double standards are pointed out.

You don't like it? Stop being a hypocrite. Dumbass.

 

[Correll]

It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.

My ass!

I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?

I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.

You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".


You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.


Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".

It would theoretically be calibrated to make up for the disparity. How they determine that exactly? I obviously have no idea, but I think it safe to say not zero nor 100%. Why do you care?

Seriously? Why do I care, when you are discussing possibly taking 99% of available resources and depriving me and mine of having any access to them, and giving them to someone else?


Cause it would be a huge freaking HARM to me, and my interests if you did something like that.


I mean, you know that. That is why you said NOT one hundred per cent, right?

 

[daveman]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?

You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves. How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?

 

[Correll]

You seem to be jumping all over the place.

No, just following you.

So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.

That's what I said!

Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?

After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.

Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?

Sure, why not?

So, blacks get to organize and have input into public decision making regarding giving them special consideration and extra resources to make up for "current disadvantages".


Ok. That makes sense. I mean, they have an interest in how much they will be getting and how it will be spent.



So, Blacks have the right.


Do whites have any right to have input into that discussion? It seems like a WHITE INTEREST, how much or more to the point, how little resources will be left for them, after the special consideration and extra resources are giving to blacks.

So, do WHITES have the same right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS, as the BLACKS do,


IN YOUR OPINION?

 

[Correll]

The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.

You said something right for a change.

I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection. It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.

The left doesn't. The left wants people to be defenseless. I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.

That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People

It's a lie? Of course it isn't. Don't be silly.

Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?

It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.

Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.

Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.

Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.

You don't get to dictate what people need, kid. You just need to accept that damn quick.

You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans. This is undeniable. So don't waste even more of my time denying it. Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?

Hint: Because you don't care about victims of crime. Period. End of story.

And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.

 

[Grumblenuts]

It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.

My ass!

I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?

I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.

You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".


You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.


Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".

It would theoretically be calibrated to make up for the disparity. How they determine that exactly? I obviously have no idea, but I think it safe to say not zero nor 100%. Why do you care?

Seriously? Why do I care, when you are discussing possibly taking 99% of available resources and depriving me and mine of having any access to them, and giving them to someone else?


Cause it would be a huge freaking HARM to me, and my interests if you did something like that.


I mean, you know that. That is why you said NOT one hundred per cent, right?

How do you dream up such notions? No one said anything about it being any of your money, let alone all of it. As things stand now, it appears Asians are paying a higher percentages than whites.

 

[daveman]

Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.

I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.

All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.

So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?

I said black Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.

Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.

Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.

You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.

Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.


They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.

It's not false.

Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.


And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.


If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.


I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.


Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?


Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?


Whatever. FUck off and die.

Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.

Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.

Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.

 

[Grumblenuts]

You seem to be jumping all over the place.

No, just following you.

So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.

That's what I said!

Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?

After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.

Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?

Sure, why not?

So, blacks get to organize and have input into public decision making regarding giving them special consideration and extra resources to make up for "current disadvantages".


Ok. That makes sense. I mean, they have an interest in how much they will be getting and how it will be spent.



So, Blacks have the right.


Do whites have any right to have input into that discussion? It seems like a WHITE INTEREST, how much or more to the point, how little resources will be left for them, after the special consideration and extra resources are giving to blacks.

So, do WHITES have the same right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS, as the BLACKS do,


IN YOUR OPINION?

They do by default being the majority in this democratic society. Majority rule, capiche?

 

[Correll]

You seem to be jumping all over the place.

No, just following you.

So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.

That's what I said!

Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?

After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.

Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?

Sure, why not?

So, blacks get to organize and have input into public decision making regarding giving them special consideration and extra resources to make up for "current disadvantages".


Ok. That makes sense. I mean, they have an interest in how much they will be getting and how it will be spent.



So, Blacks have the right.


Do whites have any right to have input into that discussion? It seems like a WHITE INTEREST, how much or more to the point, how little resources will be left for them, after the special consideration and extra resources are giving to blacks.

So, do WHITES have the same right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS, as the BLACKS do,


IN YOUR OPINION?

They do by default being the majority in this democratic society. Majority rule, capiche?

I do not understand. Whites have the right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS because they are the majority?


But BLACKS have it, and they are NOT the majority?


And you seemed really hostile to the idea of WHITE INTERESTS earlier.


And what happens in 2050 when Whites are no longer the Majority? Do we lose the right to speak out in favor of our INTERESTS then?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Whites have the right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS because they are the majority?

Whites certainly do get to express their individual interests and do so regularly being they comprise the majority. However, I've yet to meet anyone in RL who had "white interests" they wished to communicate in any public decision making venue.

But BLACKS have it, and they are NOT the majority?

Yes, being in the minority, blacks have to work much harder to get their voices heard.

And you seemed really hostile to the idea of WHITE INTERESTS earlier.

Quote me or knock that off.

And what happens in 2050 when Whites are no longer the Majority? Do we lose the right to speak out in favor of our INTERESTS then?

Then the tables will be turned. It will get harder for whites to be heard. However, whites will likely still have and control way more capital for at least another fifty years if any of us survive that long.

 

[Correll]

Whites have the right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS because they are the majority?

Whites certainly do get to express their individual interests and do so regularly being they comprise the majority. However, I've yet to meet anyone in RL who had "white interests" they wished to communicate in any public decision making venue.

But BLACKS have it, and they are NOT the majority?

Yes, being in the minority, blacks have to work much harder to get their voices heard.

And you seemed really hostile to the idea of WHITE INTERESTS earlier.

Quote me or knock that off.

And what happens in 2050 when Whites are no longer the Majority? Do we lose the right to speak out in favor of our INTERESTS then?

Then the tables will be turned. It will get harder for whites to be heard. However, whites will likely still have and control way more capital for at least another fifty years if any of us survive that long.

If the government is favoring BLACKS with public funds, and resources, up to NOT 100%, then that is not an INDIVIDUAL INTEREST, for each individual to individually try to seek redress for,


but a GROUP interest, of WHITES.


Because it is not individuals being discriminated against, in access to public resources, but WHITES AS A GROUP.



Do you see that as a GROUP WHITE INTEREST now, and if not, why not?

 

[IM2]

Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.

The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.

You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.

You're retarded.

So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.

That's nice. Go play.

He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.


Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?

He's counting on the usual leftist response: Do Not Question The Black Person.

Rational people, however, don't do that.

I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.

Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?

It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?

Well, you are a leftist. Nothing but emotion.

And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?

Well, you are a leftist. Emotion and double standards.

So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Whites have the right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS because they are the majority?

Whites certainly do get to express their individual interests and do so regularly being they comprise the majority. However, I've yet to meet anyone in RL who had "white interests" they wished to communicate in any public decision making venue.

But BLACKS have it, and they are NOT the majority?

Yes, being in the minority, blacks have to work much harder to get their voices heard.

And you seemed really hostile to the idea of WHITE INTERESTS earlier.

Quote me or knock that off.

And what happens in 2050 when Whites are no longer the Majority? Do we lose the right to speak out in favor of our INTERESTS then?

Then the tables will be turned. It will get harder for whites to be heard. However, whites will likely still have and control way more capital for at least another fifty years if any of us survive that long.

If the government is favoring BLACKS with public funds, and resources, up to NOT 100%, then that is not an INDIVIDUAL INTEREST, for each individual to individually try to seek redress for,


but a GROUP interest, of WHITES.


Because it is not individuals being discriminated against, in access to public resources, but WHITES AS A GROUP.



Do you see that as a GROUP WHITE INTEREST now, and if not, why not?

In order to be discriminated against a group of whites would have to establish standing as a class being harmed by some group of these "BLACKS" you refer to who would also have to be established as a competing class. In reality it would likely be mostly white people responsible for deciding who got how much funding so the whole notion just seems ridiculous.