This shit is getting old.

[katsteve2012]

What is it with some who base everything on a political agenda, and automatically assume that every statement has a political foundation? I merely posted a link about some of the history of the welfare system, but It's your thread. Are you now changing the topic to "liberals and percentages""? . If so, why not be direct, and state your point........if you have one?

Again, doing the math shows that about 1 in 20 whites and 3 in 10 blacks are on welfare.

I think that's what he means about stats.

I understand basic math. My question was directed at him regarding what math and statistics have to do with so called "liberals".

Good, I guess that means you're not in denial about the abysmal state of black America. Some would label it racism, but you are obviously too enlightened.

Guess as you wish, And assume to be "abysmal" what you choose. You do not speak for me.

And here I thought you understood statistics.

You "thought" right. What you fail to realize is that I will not waste any time playing schoolyard semantics with you on a subject that you offer nothing of value to.

Now do you get it?

Good.

Got it. Statistics, by any measure, prove the abysmal failure that is black America.

With your understanding, we are agreed.

Since it appears to be so important to you that I agree with you, please continue to glorify yourself by thinking that I do.

That being said, you may continue to gleefully "celebrate" what you think is the abysmal failure of black America.

What is it with some who base everything on a political agenda, and automatically assume that every statement has a political foundation? I merely posted a link about some of the history of the welfare system, but It's your thread. Are you now changing the topic to "liberals and percentages""? . If so, why not be direct, and state your point........if you have one?

Again, doing the math shows that about 1 in 20 whites and 3 in 10 blacks are on welfare.

I think that's what he means about stats.

I understand basic math. My question was directed at him regarding what math and statistics have to do with so called "liberals".

Good, I guess that means you're not in denial about the abysmal state of black America. Some would label it racism, but you are obviously too enlightened.

Guess as you wish, And assume to be "abysmal" what you choose. You do not speak for me.

And here I thought you understood statistics.

You "thought" right. What you fail to realize is that I will not waste any time playing schoolyard semantics with you on a subject that you offer nothing of value to.

Now do you get it?

Good.

Got it. Statistics, by any measure, prove the abysmal failure that is black America.

With your understanding, we are agreed.

Since it appears to be so important to you that I agree with you, please continue to glorify yourself by thinking that I do.

That being said, you may continue to gleefully "celebrate" what you think is the abysmal failure of black America.

An acknowledgement of the failure of black America is hardly a "gleeful celebration". It is, however, a recognition of yet another failed attempt at equality between races.

It is and was a pipe-dream anyway,

[/

That depends on what one puts in their pipe to smoke, and what their definition of "equality" is.

This is an anonymous public forum and opinions here are like "Assholes"........everyone has one, and anyone can be one.

 

[katsteve2012]

No one is "spitting out babies like rabbits." Fertility rates are falling across the board. Your offensive terminology in reference to human life says a lot about you.

They're not spitting them out like rabbits? Everyday I see hispanic women going into the WIC office with one in the stroller, one walking next to her and a huge belly. hispanics are Catholic and don't believe in birth control.

Who are you to decide who can or can not have children?

I don't see where anyone is deciding who can or can not have children, but what people are concerned about is the government incentivizing the situation that causes poor people to feel as if it is OK to have babies like mad while their hands are stretched way out. What or how did you get what you got out of someone speaking about these things by your response in which you gave? It appears by your statement that you are angry, so are you ?

Nope. Not angry. But somehow she seems to focus her "concern" on minorities only - specifically blacks and hispanics. I don't hear her saying anything about white teen pregnancies and whites on welfare do you?

Poverty In America Myths About Welfare Recipients CBS Charlotte

1. Most of the people on welfare are African-Americans.

Fact: Think again! The margin between Caucasians and African-Americans who are on welfare is extremely narrow — 38.8 percent of Caucasians, and 39.8 percent of African-Americans are on welfare.

3. Most woman on welfare continue to have babies so that they can maximize the amount of benefits that they receive.

Fact: The average family on welfare has 2.8 children. Furthermore, only one out of every 10 mothers on welfare has more than 3 children.

Actually, the black population in America was denied access to the welfare system at its inception. Some interesting information in the article below.

Blacks and the History of Welfare

Considering african americans are 13% of the population.......

Your point is?

According to What percentage of people in US are on welfare
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-people-on-welfare-are-white,-black,-or-hispanic

- 29 million people are on welfare
- 39% white: 11,661,000
- 38% black: 11,362,000

According to Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
- US population: 313,544,041
- White: 72.4%: 227,005,885
- Black: 12.6%: 39,506,549

Math time!:

Whites: 11.661,000 / 227,005,885 * 100 = 5.13%
Blacks: 11,362,000 / 39,506,549 * 100 = 28.75%

Is this clear enough? I'm not sure I can dumb it down any further.
Maybe you can help me with that..since you seem to be an expert on stupid.

It's about time that you wrote a complete sentence and stated what you were trying to say. I am not psychic nor do I waste valuable time guessing what some vaugue, half assed post means.

Ive seen these figures before. So what does this have to do with so called liberals, cowboy?

 

[katsteve2012]

No one is "spitting out babies like rabbits." Fertility rates are falling across the board. Your offensive terminology in reference to human life says a lot about you.

They're not spitting them out like rabbits? Everyday I see hispanic women going into the WIC office with one in the stroller, one walking next to her and a huge belly. hispanics are Catholic and don't believe in birth control.

Who are you to decide who can or can not have children?

I don't see where anyone is deciding who can or can not have children, but what people are concerned about is the government incentivizing the situation that causes poor people to feel as if it is OK to have babies like mad while their hands are stretched way out. What or how did you get what you got out of someone speaking about these things by your response in which you gave? It appears by your statement that you are angry, so are you ?

Nope. Not angry. But somehow she seems to focus her "concern" on minorities only - specifically blacks and hispanics. I don't hear her saying anything about white teen pregnancies and whites on welfare do you?

Poverty In America Myths About Welfare Recipients CBS Charlotte

1. Most of the people on welfare are African-Americans.

Fact: Think again! The margin between Caucasians and African-Americans who are on welfare is extremely narrow — 38.8 percent of Caucasians, and 39.8 percent of African-Americans are on welfare.

3. Most woman on welfare continue to have babies so that they can maximize the amount of benefits that they receive.

Fact: The average family on welfare has 2.8 children. Furthermore, only one out of every 10 mothers on welfare has more than 3 children.

Actually, the black population in America was denied access to the welfare system at its inception. Some interesting information in the article below.

Blacks and the History of Welfare

Considering african americans are 13% of the population.......

Your point is?

What is it with liberals and percentages?

What is it with some who base everything on a political agenda, and automatically assume that every statement has a political foundation? I merely posted a link about some of the history of the welfare system, but It's your thread. Are you now changing the topic to "liberals and percentages""? . If so, why not be direct, and state your point........if you have one?

I didnt steer it in this direction. And if you dont understand percentages you're too damn stupid to converse with.

I think you're the idiot here, cowboy. First of all, you imply that I'm a liberal, when you even know me and then you ask a general question about liberals and percentages.

WTF?

 

[Kathy Tazzo]

No one is "spitting out babies like rabbits." Fertility rates are falling across the board. Your offensive terminology in reference to human life says a lot about you.

They're not spitting them out like rabbits? Everyday I see hispanic women going into the WIC office with one in the stroller, one walking next to her and a huge belly. hispanics are Catholic and don't believe in birth control.

Who are you to decide who can or can not have children?

I don't see where anyone is deciding who can or can not have children, but what people are concerned about is the government incentivizing the situation that causes poor people to feel as if it is OK to have babies like mad while their hands are stretched way out. What or how did you get what you got out of someone speaking about these things by your response in which you gave? It appears by your statement that you are angry, so are you ?

Nope. Not angry. But somehow she seems to focus her "concern" on minorities only - specifically blacks and hispanics. I don't hear her saying anything about white teen pregnancies and whites on welfare do you?

Poverty In America Myths About Welfare Recipients CBS Charlotte

1. Most of the people on welfare are African-Americans.

Fact: Think again! The margin between Caucasians and African-Americans who are on welfare is extremely narrow — 38.8 percent of Caucasians, and 39.8 percent of African-Americans are on welfare.

3. Most woman on welfare continue to have babies so that they can maximize the amount of benefits that they receive.

Fact: The average family on welfare has 2.8 children. Furthermore, only one out of every 10 mothers on welfare has more than 3 children.

Actually, the black population in America was denied access to the welfare system at its inception. Some interesting information in the article below.

Blacks and the History of Welfare

Considering african americans are 13% of the population.......

Your point is?

According to What percentage of people in US are on welfare
http://www.chacha.com/question/what-percentage-of-people-on-welfare-are-white,-black,-or-hispanic

- 29 million people are on welfare
- 39% white: 11,661,000
- 38% black: 11,362,000

According to Demographics of the United States - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
- US population: 313,544,041
- White: 72.4%: 227,005,885
- Black: 12.6%: 39,506,549

Math time!:

Whites: 11.661,000 / 227,005,885 * 100 = 5.13%
Blacks: 11,362,000 / 39,506,549 * 100 = 28.75%

Is this clear enough? I'm not sure I can dumb it down any further.
Maybe you can help me with that..since you seem to be an expert on stupid.

 

[Kathy Tazzo]

It's never clear to the apologists.

 

[katsteve2012]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

 

[beagle9]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

OK, so what about a President and his administration for whom are making excuses for what many do find to be wild, weird and outlandish excuses and/or tolerance ramblings for what this nation see's as very bad things in which takes place or goes on against us here, and out in the world ? For example take the case of a terrorist who shot up Fort Hood, and them saying it was just workplace violence (HUH?), otherwise instead of it being called a terrorist act that was caused by an Islamic extremist who just so happen to be in our military, it was called work place violence ?? I mean here he (Hassan) was acting as a single sleeper cell lying within our military until he pounced, but we worried more about whether he could keep his beard or not afterwards ? Then there is Benghazi where a video was blamed, and a man was arrested for that video, except it was not the video at all in which they claimed it was that caused the attack (just more excuses or lies being told), where as instead it was a terrorist attack not related to a so called video at all, so what was up with that lie or cover up on that ? The excuses are adding up big time on these things, but somehow they keep on going and going and going, and on and on and on with this stuff upon either the use of deflection or distraction being used more often now than not. Meanwhile the Americans die, and they have suffered greatly under the weight of it all, even getting their head cut off most recently as this thing continues, and surprisingly it was in an area that was finally under a majority control in Iraq before Obama took office, and now look at it all over there, just look at it. I can only imagine the horrors the Iraqi people have suffered due to our blunders in which our leaders can't seem to get right anymore, and this no matter what is done or is being done in our name these days. Ha, apologist ? I think we all know who the real apologist or excuse makers really are now. It is the dems and their ideology found in extreme liberalism, excuse making, tolerance called for in cases that should not be tolerated at all, and their seemingly lack of good common decency and good common sense anymore these days.

 

[Kathy Tazzo]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

 

[katsteve2012]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

 

[Asclepias]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

Feral apes such as yourself would pee yourself if you had to really fire a weapon. Who do you think you are kidding internet rambo?

 

[katsteve2012]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

Well, "Wyatt Earp", the police have never failed to respond when I have called for help. The best way that I have found for avoiding trouble is not looking for it....as opposed to "wishing for it" as you seem to be doing.

That being said, you appear to have an itchy trigger finger coupled with a bad attitude, which is a winning formula for ending up in jail getting hosed every night by "big boy", with no guns to defend yourself.

So as you sit huddled in the corner, cradling your weaponry, and hoping for someone to break into your home and find you, I would much rather be enjoying life.

To each his own.

 

[katsteve2012]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

OK, so what about a President and his administration for whom are making excuses for what many do find to be wild, weird and outlandish excuses and/or tolerance ramblings for what this nation see's as very bad things in which takes place or goes on against us here, and out in the world ? For example take the case of a terrorist who shot up Fort Hood, and them saying it was just workplace violence (HUH?), otherwise instead of it being called a terrorist act that was caused by an Islamic extremist who just so happen to be in our military, it was called work place violence ?? I mean here he (Hassan) was acting as a single sleeper cell lying within our military until he pounced, but we worried more about whether he could keep his beard or not afterwards ? Then there is Benghazi where a video was blamed, and a man was arrested for that video, except it was not the video at all in which they claimed it was that caused the attack (just more excuses or lies being told), where as instead it was a terrorist attack not related to a so called video at all, so what was up with that lie or cover up on that ? The excuses are adding up big time on these things, but somehow they keep on going and going and going, and on and on and on with this stuff upon either the use of deflection or distraction being used more often now than not. Meanwhile the Americans die, and they have suffered greatly under the weight of it all, even getting their head cut off most recently as this thing continues, and surprisingly it was in an area that was finally under a majority control in Iraq before Obama took office, and now look at it all over there, just look at it. I can only imagine the horrors the Iraqi people have suffered due to our blunders in which our leaders can't seem to get right anymore, and this no matter what is done or is being done in our name these days. Ha, apologist ? I think we all know who the real apologist or excuse makers really are now. It is the dems and their ideology found in extreme liberalism, excuse making, tolerance called for in cases that should not be tolerated at all, and their seemingly lack of good common decency and good common sense anymore these days.

Ok. There is a political forum that your post would likely get more attention in.

 

[katsteve2012]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

Feral apes such as yourself would pee yourself if you had to really fire a weapon. Who do you think you are kidding internet rambo?

Lol...some real badasses up in here, eh?

The wonders of the Internet.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

It's never clear to the apologists.

It's never clear to the apologists.

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

Well, "Wyatt Earp", the police have never failed to respond when I have called for help. The best way that I have found for avoiding trouble is not looking for it....as opposed to "wishing for it" as you seem to be doing.

That being said, you appear to have an itchy trigger finger coupled with a bad attitude, which is a winning formula for ending up in jail getting hosed every night by "big boy", with no guns to defend yourself.

So as you sit huddled in the corner, cradling your weaponry, and hoping for someone to break into your home and find you, I would much rather be enjoying life.

To each his own.

If you had time to sit around and wait for the police,you were never in any real danger to begin with. *****...

 

[katsteve2012]

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

Well, "Wyatt Earp", the police have never failed to respond when I have called for help. The best way that I have found for avoiding trouble is not looking for it....as opposed to "wishing for it" as you seem to be doing.

That being said, you appear to have an itchy trigger finger coupled with a bad attitude, which is a winning formula for ending up in jail getting hosed every night by "big boy", with no guns to defend yourself.

So as you sit huddled in the corner, cradling your weaponry, and hoping for someone to break into your home and find you, I would much rather be enjoying life.

To each his own.

If you had time to sit around and wait for the police,you were never in any real danger to begin with. *****...

There is a difference between being in imminent danger and perceiving the world around you to be one big threat, Marshall Dillon. Your most dangerous threat would probably be shooting yourself by accident.

 

[Asclepias]

The true "apologists" in this thread should learn the definition of the word. Which is:
"One who speaks or writes in defense of someone or something"

For example:

"Arm yourself and shoot to kill"

"A need for the presence of the KKK"

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"


There is a vast difference between the above and simply asking a question regarding the meaning of a vague statement like: "What iis it with liberals and percentages?"
especially when the individual who makes the statement does not know whether the person they are addressing is a "liberal" or not.

Understand?

That's the point, if you defend bad behavior or bad people, you are an apologist. That's the definition. Do you understand?!!

Of course I do, and thanks for proving my point. The following statements are those of an apologist AND an ignorant alarmist:

Arm yourself and shoot to kill"..(instead of allowing the law to do their job)

"A need for the presence of the KKK" (vigilantism by white sheet wearing, hooded criminals?! really?!)

"A need to ship all non whites out of America, or have an all out race war"(there are likely more law abiding, hard working non whites in America than not, why should they be shipped anywhere? The very notion of such a concept is that of an utter loon....look in the mirror.)

Now.....Do YOU understand?

Damn right "arm yourself and shoot to kill" because you know damn well the cops are worthless in most situations,but if you want to rely on em to save your ass feel free.

Feral apes such as yourself would pee yourself if you had to really fire a weapon. Who do you think you are kidding internet rambo?

Lol...some real badasses up in here, eh?

The wonders of the Internet.

Its funny as hell. You know good and well in the real world they would be afraid to meet your direct stare face to face but they want to act tough on the interwebs. It provides a constant source of amusement for me.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What gets old to me is the fact that while skin color does elicit a knee-jerk negative reaction from a certain portion of the right, it provides what amounts to immunity for a MUCH larger portion of the left. So eager they are to prove they are not racist, they become racialists to a degree far greater than that which they oppose. Being black or being Muslim acts as a "get out of jail free" card to these people, so automatic is their denial, obfuscation, apologia and sophistry.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Rut roh. Watch out kathy! You are going to be accused of being a racist and although invited to "debate" back because this is a "debate" message forum although it does not say ANYWHERE that is except in the Clean Debate Zone, and one of the mods wants to start a fight, call you names over your opinion and the other one says anyone tired of this shit is racists having a field day and expect you to DEBATE your opinion..... And if you do argue with either one...um...well...not a good idea since they are staff.

What names did I call you?

I'm assuming you saying we are not allowed to discuss the issues brought up by you

Maybe black on white crime IS decreasing. Good. But what about black on black crime? Since I am supposedly a racist, what about those children afraid to come out of their own homes due to gang violence and are hurt or killed by other blacks?

I don't think the KKK is going to help with that.

This black war has to have something done. And if ANYONE speaks up about it....they are racist. So most stay silent. That pretty much sucks.

Again..just my opinon. I guess i need a new sigline so I don't have to keep repeating myself and told to DEBATE my stance.

What black war? (or is that asking to much of you again?)

Gracie, it wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of being racist. Political correctness is a disease in this country and God forbid you say something that is true, it's still deemed as racist.

If you're accused of being a racist on a regular basis, that probably means you are. So, wear it proud.

 

[Asclepias]

What gets old to me is the fact that while skin color does elicit a knee-jerk negative reaction from a certain portion of the right, it provides what amounts to immunity for a MUCH larger portion of the left. So eager they are to prove they are not racist, they become racialists to a degree far greater than that which they oppose. Being black or being Muslim acts as a "get out of jail free" card to these people, so automatic is their denial, obfuscation, apologia and sophistry.

Thats weird. I wonder why Blacks are arrested and incarcerated at a higher rate for drugs than white people when white people are shown to be involved in the selling and use of drugs more often? Where is that get out of jail free card again?